|
Author
|
Topic: Understanding the need for Genesis to be literally true
|
flaja
New Member
Member # 5676
|
posted
The ultimate issue for the creation account of Genesis is the nature of God. The age of the universe or earth is not the issue. Neither is Darwinism. Whether or not God created living things just to let them die before Adam and Eve sinned is the issue. Darwinism with or without God’s input depends on survival of the fittest and this requires death. An old age for the universe with or without a gap in the beginning, also implies that death existed before Adam and Eve sinned.
But is a God that would create living things and then make them die without any justification be a God that is worthy of recognition or worship? I believe the answer is a flat no. I don’t care about how old the universe/earth is; it doesn’t matter and it should have no place in doctrine. But if you think God is so unjust and craven that He would create living things and let them die for the fun of it, you are going straight to Hell.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
Hum! The God of separation! Just as He also is the God of 'sanctification', which is separation. And we are 'sanctified' unto Him, which means set apart. Yet we are set apart 'to' Him, for His use, which means we are given to Him, not to accomplish anything of ourselves 'for' Him, but by being sanctified unto Him, by His Spirit (by which we are sanctified unto Him), He uses us to accomplish His will.
"For it is God who worketh to will and to do [accomplish] [of] His good pleasure."
Is God shocked and angry if we do not believe that the world was created in 168 hours? I think not. (Though, the Catholic Church may instruct its fathers to discipline those who believe otherwise.) Does it make a difference in our salvation as to how long it took to make the earth? Is there anything wrong with believing that it happened in 168 hours, even if it took eons? I think not. We have the record He gave us, and it tells us all that we need to know about the particulars. Does it matter if we doubt the word He gave us? You better bet, regardles of what the particulars are.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by ahar:
Morning all
Before I start, I'm not trying to debate Genesis, Darwin, Evolution etc etc - I'm asking a question.
The English anglican tradition has always held that not all parts of the old testament are literally true (e.g. Noah and the Ark, creation of the world in six days etc etc). Within Anglicanism they never found a theological difficulty with some things being stories and others (like the gospels) being an accurate account.
I was wondering, why does Genesis theologically need to be literally true - what is the relationship with the main themes of the bible which mean that is genesis is a story rather than fact it undermines everything (the resurrection etc)
Now, I know some of you will be itching to fire off a scathing reply about Darwinism. Please resist. This is a sensible question, and I would like sensible answers not related to explaining why the theory of evolution is wrong!
Hi Ahar,
You said
quote:
Its a very interesting idea - as you said it allows an 'old earth' without compromises.
How do you think that it would fit with an 'old universe' idea - would the universe still have to be created in 5 days (and therefore electromagnetic radiation have to be created en route to the earth at the right wavelength to look like is billions of years old?
And you said
quote:
But that's my point - it's not possible for one person to so fully understand all of the scientific disciplins that relate to the points that Carol posted so that he (or she) could understand whether what she posted is true or not.
It would take years of study to understand just one of them, hence the futility of two non-experts discussing other people's scientific points of view.
Exactly! My purpose for posting some of the data for a 'young earth' was to point out that there are arguments for both sides of the question, and that, as you say, we are not scientists.
Getting back to your original question:
The wonderful plan of redemption wasn’t a divine afterthought, for God’s people were chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4; Rev. 17:8) and given by the Father to the Son both to belong to His kingdom (Matt. 25:34) and to share His glory (John 17:2, 6, 9, 11-12, 24). The sacrificial death of the Son wasn’t an accident, it was an appointment (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28); for He was “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8).
In the counsels of eternity, the Godhead determined to create a world that would include humans made in the image of God. The Father was involved in Creation (Gen. 1:1; 2 Kings 19:15; Acts 4:24), but so were the Son (John 1:1-3, 10; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2) and the Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:30). God didn’t create a world because He needed anything but that He might share His love with creatures who, unlike the angels, are made in the image of God and can respond willingly to His love.
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) refers to the dateless past when God brought the universe into existence out of nothing (Ps. 33:6; Rom. 4:17; Heb. 1:3).2-3 Genesis 1:1-2 is the declaration that God created the universe; the detailed explanation of the six days of God’s creative work is given in the rest of the chapter.
Thirty-two times in this chapter, this creative God is called Elohim, a Hebrew word that emphasizes His majesty and power. (The covenant name “Jehovah” appears for the first time in Gen. 2:4.) Elohim is a plural noun that is consistently used in connection with singular verbs and adjectives. (Hebrew tenses are singular, dual, or plural.) In Scripture, Creation is attributed to the Father (Acts 4:24) and to the Son (John 1:1-3) and to the Holy Spirit (Ps. 104:30).
Elohim reveals His power by creating everything by merely speaking the word. Matter is not eternal; it began when God spoke everything into existence (Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Rev. 4:11; 5:13). Scripture doesn’t reveal why God chose to start His creative work with a chaotic mass that was dark, formless, and empty; 2-4 but the Holy Spirit, brooding over the waters, 2-5 would bring order out of chaos and beauty and fullness out of emptiness.2-6 He can still do that today with the lives of all who will yield to Him.
The nations that surrounded the people of Israel had ancient traditions that “explained” the origin of the universe and humankind. But the simple account in Genesis presents us with one God who alone created all things and is still in control of His creation.
From the very first day of Creation, God established the principle of separation. Not only did He separate the light from the darkness (Gen. 1:4) and the day from the night (v. 14), but later He also separated the waters above from the waters beneath (vv. 6-8), and the land from the waters (vv. 9-10). Through Moses, God commanded the people of Israel to remain separated from the nations around them (Ex. 34:10-17; Deut. 7:1-11); and when they violated this commandment, they suffered. God’s people today need to be careful in their walk (Ps. 1:1) and not be defiled by the world (Rom. 12:1-2; James 1:7; 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17).
(Wiersbe)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Zeena
Advanced Member
Member # 7223
|
posted
1 John 2:20
But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
1 Corinthians 2:10-11
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
James 1:5
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
quote:
Originally posted by ahar:
I work with computers and manage large change projects in government departments.
So then, seeing as we are members, one of another, you work with computers, I work with people, Joe down the street works with salinity in piplines, Bob in the next town over works in the oceanography research industry..
Can't we pool our resources and learn from one another [in Christ]?
--------------------
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zeena:
Shouldn't you take the time to find these things out Andy?
Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
But that's my point - it's not possible for one person to so fully understand all of the scientific disciplins that relate to the points that Carol posted so that he (or she) could understand whether what she posted is true or not.
It would take years of study to understand just one of them, hence the futility of two non-experts discussing other people's scientific points of view.
As I said, I come from the English Anglican Christian tradition that generally holds that there is no conflict between the scientifically reckoned age of the earth and scripture. Hence my question.
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Zeena
Advanced Member
Member # 7223
|
posted
he created it not in vain
--------------------
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Thunderz7
Advanced Member
Member # 31
|
posted
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(Vain) in Is. 45:18 is the same word in the originl language as
(without form) in Gen. 1:2.
Posts: 1113 | From: Northeast Alabama | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Likewise also the "generations" of the heavens and earth are consistent with the model that I have presented regarding the "generations" or "births" of Adam not beginning until Adam and Eve were OUTSIDE the garden.
These "generations" of the heavens and the earth are progressively outlined as "generations" or "births" in Genesis 1 thru Genesis 2:1-3, and then Genesis 2:4 completed it by saying:
Genesis 2
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
Similarly, the "generations" or "births" of Noah did not begin until Noah was 500 years old, while almost nothing is mentioned about Noah's first 500 years:
Genesis 5
32 And Noah was 500 years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Genesis 6
9 Now, these are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
10 And Noah begot three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Likewise the "generations" of Adam and Eve did not begin until they were OUTSIDE the garden, where they begot Cain and Abel, and then when Adam had been 130 years outside the garden, Seth was born to replace the dead Abel and the banished Cain.
Genesis 5
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived 130 years, and begot a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
NOTE: After Adam and Eve had lived OUTSIDE outside the garden for 130 years, Seth was born. (But prior to that, Cain and Abel had been born, ALSO OUTSIDE of the garden.)
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were 800 years: and he begat sons and daughters.
NOTE: Adam lived 800 more years OUTSIDE the garden after having Seth, and then the curse took hold of him and he died.
5 And all the days that Adam lived were 930 years; and he died.
NOTE: Meaning, that Adam lived for a total of 930 years OUTSIDE the garden and then he died.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Zeena
Advanced Member
Member # 7223
|
posted
Shouldn't you take the time to find these things out Andy?
Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
--------------------
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
Hi Carol
The funny thing about the debates regarding evolution, young earth, old earth, old universe etc is that at lot of it takes place with people like me (maybe not you, not sure of your background) that really don't have any in depth scientific understanding of the topics. All we can do is quote the work of other people and we have no understanding of the science ourselves.
Take for example the salinity of the sea. The text that you posted states that the sea should be far more salty than it is but simply references 'calculations'. There is no way either you or I (I assume you, as I say I could be wrong and you're a oceanographer or geophysist) can really understand this.
The standard scientific explanation would be that a number of different processes removes the salt content of the sea (chemical reactions, subduction of sea water at the plate boundaries etc), that the salt content of different parts of the sea is different and has been differnet at different times in the past. Again, neither of us have the knowledge to understand the calculations and science that upderpins this explanation.
I and you have no way to work out which explanation is true - we simply have to go with the side that we already know. It's a bit like one person's word against another. If one of the people involved is your brother, you'll take his side without having any proof yourself.
The only thing that we can say is that the vast majority of scientists that work in areas related to this have come to the conclusion that there the sea is not to salty and they think that they understand the processes that take the salt from the sea.
Do I know that they are right or wrong? No - I work with computers and manage large change projects in government departments. Hence my question about why the theological need for literal interpretations - I wanted to know why it was important to be literally true.
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Zeena
Advanced Member
Member # 7223
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eden:
1. This model allows the earth to be old, which fits the geologic evidence of thinly layered sedimentation and marine shell chalk limestone, and alleviates the need to say that God made the earth 6,000 years ago but made the earth LOOK old when creating the earth.
Whilst Adam and Eve had yet not fallen, the world was PERFECT, as were they.
quote:
Originally posted by Eden:
Since God is love, it never seemed consistent to me for God to "trick" people by creating the earth WITH sedimentation features.
God is THE Artist ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
The 'young earth' idea gets a fair review...
Abstract
Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages.
Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.”1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.2
2. Too few supernova remnants .
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor .
Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic subduction can remove it.
Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea
Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
Electrical resistance in the earth’s core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth’s magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.
The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15
7. Many strata are too tightly bent
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16
8. Biological material decays too fast
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24
10. Too much helium in minerals
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.
12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.
13. Agriculture is too recent
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.31
14. History is too short
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.
**************************************************
by Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., ICR associate professor of physics
First published in
Impact #384, ICR
June 2005
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
Its a very interesting idea - as you said it allows an 'old earth' without compromises.
How do you think that it would fit with an 'old universe' idea - would the universe still have to be created in 5 days (and therefore electromagnetic radiation have to be created en route to the earth at the right wavelength to look like is billions of years old?
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Eden had written quote:
We will probably not know until we meet Jesus face-to-face again whether the earth looks very old through its own geologic processes such as sedimentation, etc., or whether God MADE the earth to LOOK old if the earth was created about 6,000 years ago. So that part we probably cannot determine until we ask Jesus.
However, the Bible says that God created the earth and the animals, and man, in a period of 6 days, using the Hebrew word "yom" for all those days.
If these were consecutive 24-hour days, then Adam would be only 5 days younger than the creation of the earth.
The problem then becomes, if I assert that the earth was created in a very old period, is that the same word "yom" was used for the creation of a very old earth as for the creation of Adam on the 6th "yom" or day.
Then, in Genesis 3, Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden, but while they were still IN the garden, they did NOT "generate" any children.
Then in Genesis 4, Adam and Eve start to have "generations" in the form of Cain and Abel.
And then in Genesis 5:1, it says "the book of the generations of Adam", and it is from this record of "generations of Adam" that the Bible then begins to count Bible chronology and from which we get the idea that the "earth is 6,000 years old".
But, if "the book of generations" starts to count ONLY from the time when Adam and Eve were OUTSIDE the garden and started to have sexual relations OUTSIDE the garden (i.e., the book of generations starts counting "from their generations"), then Adam and Eve could have lived in the garden for a very long period prior to Adam and Eve being expelled from the garden, and we simply have no Bible record of the length of that period.
But once Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden, THEN the period of "generations" began and THEN the Bible counting began.
So that, when Genesis 5:3 says, "Adam lived 130 years and begot a son in his own likeness ... and called his name Seth", then that would mean that Adam is 130 years old since they were expelled and this period of "generations" began OUTSIDE the garden, but this book of generations says NOTHING about how long Adam and Eve lived IN the garden prior to that.
In other words, the meaning of Genesis 5 may be that Adam was NOT 130 years old when Seth was born, but rather that(after Abel was slain and Cain banished), Adam had lived OUTSIDE the garden for 130 years when he begot Seth, and so on.
So from Genesis 5 on, the account of Genesis has to be FACTUAL and then each chapter dovetails factually into the next.
Further, the account of Adam and Eve sinning in the garden has to be taken factually since that sin passed on to the descendants of Adam and Eve in their "generations" outside the garden.
And, we can assume that this sin IN the garden occurred very close to Adam and Eve's EXPULSION from the garden, since the LORD expelled them from the garden BECAUSE of this sin.
So, as to Genesis 1 and 2, we need to take them factually as to it saying that God created the "earth and all that is therein", while we readers just don't know exactly WHEN that creation occurred, we only know THAT it occurred and we need to take it factually THAT it occurred.
Likewise we need to take Genesis 3 factually in that God CREATED Adam and Eve, but we don't need to know WHEN that creation actually occurred since Adam and Eve may have lived in the garden for a long time before they sinned just prior to their expulsion.
Then Genesis 4 needs to be taken factually because now Adam and Eve are OUTSIDE the garden and the period of "generations" starts OUTSIDE the garden, and now the Bible begin to count the 6,000 years, from their expulsion from the garden and when this period of "generations" began.'
From there on everything in the book of Genesis needs to be taken as factual, leading to Genesis 12 with Abram being called, leading to Isaac, and leading to Jacob and his 12 sons who became the nation of Israel.
The beauty about the above model is that:
1. This model allows the earth to be old, which fits the geologic evidence of thinly layered sedimentation and marine shell chalk limestone, and alleviates the need to say that God made the earth 6,000 years ago but made the earth LOOK old when creating the earth.
Since God is love, it never seemed consistent to me for God to "trick" people by creating the earth WITH sedimentation features.
2. This model allows Adam to be created on the 6th day at about the same time as the earth was created and Adam and Eve then lived for an unspecified period in the garden of Eden.
3. This model allows for the 6,000 years to start counting when Adam and Eve begin their "generations" OUTSIDE the garden, since "generations" refers to the "giving birth" of sons and daughters, which did not happen IN the garden, but started OUTSIDE the garden. In this way, there is NO NEED to make the earth itself only 6,000 years old.
The Bible likewise mentions in Gen.5:32 how Noah was 500 years old when he begat sons, and then Gen.6:9-10 mentions "these are the generations of Noah" and "Noah begat 3 sons", which we know from Gen.5:32 did not occur until Noah was 500 years old and Noah's previous 500 years are mostly ignored in the Bible, until, at age 500, Noah's "generations" began.
4. This model allows for Adam and Eve to be in the garden for an unspecified time, but once they sinned, they were expelled and following their expulsion, Adam and Eve's period of their "generations" or "giving birth" began.
5. So with this model, the earth no longer needs to be 6,000 years old, which always has been a matter of ridicule for non-believers, given the geologic sedimentation record that science has discovered thus far.
6. By making the "generations" of Adam and Eve last 6,000 years, Adam and Eve can have been created back then when the earth was created, and lived for ages in the garden before they sinned, and then Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and that began Adam and Eve's 6,000-year period of "generations" (their "giving birth").
And out of that eventually came Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the nation of Israel and the Lord Jesus and we are currently still in that 6,000-year period of "generations" until the second Coming of the Lord Jesus restores the garden of Eden, in His role as "the second Man" or "the last Adam", or the "new" Adam.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Hello, ahar, I am still in awe about that explanation myself; it suddenly came to me as a possible explanation WHILE I started to write an answer to you.
For a number of years I have written that Adam and Eve had to be expelled from the garden of Eden when Adam was not even 100 years old to account for Cain and Abel and Seth by the time "Adam was 135 years old", but this new interpretation suddenly solves that problem. Wow. I'm still amazed by it myself.
Be blessed, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eden:
But, if "the book of generations" starts to count ONLY from the time when Adam and Eve were OUTSIDE the garden and started to have sexual relations OUTSIDE the garden (i.e., the book of generations starts counting "from their generations"), then Adam and Eve could have lived in the garden for a very long period prior to Adam and Eve being expelled from the garden, and we simply have no Bible record of the length of that period.
But once Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden, THEN the period of "generations" began and THEN the Bible counting began.
Never seen that explanation before, thanks Eden
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Michael Harrison wrote: quote:
I was mesmerized by that eden. Good observations to give pause to!
I was mesmerized myself, Michael, when that interpretation suddenly came to me as I wrote it with the help of the Holy Spirit. That's the first time that I have EVER seen that as a possible interpretation of Adam's "generations" since I became a Christian. It had, and still has, the ring of truth to it.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
I was mesmerized by that eden. Good observations to give pause to!
Next!
Factual means that it happened. It doesn't mean that we know the specifics, or mechanics of how.
Next!!
quote:
Something interesting I came across on a DVD titled End Of The Harvest . God could have created everything instantly, but He took six days, and rested on the seventh day. Someone hypothesized that the six days of creation might represent the six thousand years God has given to mankind, and the Millennial Kingdom is represented by the seventh day. If this is true, our six thousand years are about gone, so this is another indication that our Lord Jesus Christ will return soon.
This sounds good, and may be true as a 'subset'. But scripture records that God 'rested' on the seventh day. Therefore, God has rested since He created the earth, and put man here. So, the six days would therefore be already completed, and the entirety of time from Adam to the fulfillment of Revelation would be the seventh day. That's my theory and I'm subscribing to it. (Or perhaps the seventh day is from the resurrection of our Lord, to the judgment.)
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by ahar:
Thanks Carol - I read the thread which was very interesting. A factual interpretation of Genesis (whether or not you believe in an old or young earth) isn't part of the mainstream English Anglican theology so I'd never heard the arguments before.
To be honest, there are quite a few differences in the thrust of the teaching here (or certainly in the churchs I've attended). I don't think I've ever heard a sermon on Revelations (the occasional bible study maybe) or 'end times', certainly nothing on young earth or the rapture (pre or post trib) or arguments for and against 'once saved always saved'.
Pretty much the focus is on the new testament messages like repentance, salvation and being a christian.
Hi again ahar
The one, unifying theme unfolding throughout the whole Bible is that for His own glory, God has chosen to create and gather to Himself a group of people, who will live in His eternal kingdom, to praise, honor, and serve Him forever, and through whom He will display His wisdom, power, mercy, grace, and glory. To gather His chosen ones, God must redeem them from sin. The Bible reveals God’s plan for this redemption, from its origin in eternity past to its completion in eternity future. All covenants and eras are secondary to the one continuous plan of redemption.
There is one God, who is Creator and Lord. The Bible is one book. It offers one plan of grace, recorded from its initiation in Creation, through its fulfillment in Christ, to its completion in Revelation. The Bible is the story of God’s redeeming His chosen people for His glory
Something interesting I came across on a DVD titled End Of The Harvest . God could have created everything instantly, but He took six days, and rested on the seventh day. Someone hypothesized that the six days of creation might represent the six thousand years God has given to mankind, and the Millennial Kingdom is represented by the seventh day. If this is true, our six thousand years are about gone, so this is another indication that our Lord Jesus Christ will return soon.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Zeena
Advanced Member
Member # 7223
|
posted
The need for Genesis, and all the wonderous works of God to be true, as laid out in the OT is because, without beleiving they were physically manifested, we loose sight of the future manifestation of being reunited with Him in the body.
We then start to spiritualize the contents of the entirety of revelation as revealed by God.
And we loose hope if our only hope is to know Him here and now.
--------------------
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
hello, ahar. You wrote quote:
I was wondering, why does Genesis theologically need to be literally true - what is the relationship with the main themes of the bible which mean that is genesis is a story rather than fact it undermines everything (the resurrection etc.)
We will probably not know until we meet Jesus face-to-face again whether the earth looks very old through its own geologic processes such as sedimentation, etc., or whether God MADE the earth to LOOK old if the earth was created about 6,000 years ago. So that part we probably cannot determine until we ask Jesus.
However, the Bible says that God created the earth and the animals, and man, in a period of 6 days, using the Hebrew word "yom" for all those days.
If these were consecutive 24-hour days, then Adam would be only 5 days younger than the creation of the earth.
The problem then becomes, if I assert that the earth was created in a very old period, is that the same word "yom" was used for the creation of a very old earth as for the creation of Adam on the 6th "yom" or day.
Then, in Genesis 3, Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden, but while they were still IN the garden, they did NOT "generate" any children.
Then in Genesis 4, Adam and Eve start to have "generations" in the form of Cain and Abel.
And then in Genesis 5:1, it says "the book of the generations of Adam", and it is from this record of "generations of Adam" that the Bible then begins to count Bible chronology and from which we get the idea that the "earth is 6,000 years old".
But, if "the book of generations" starts to count ONLY from the time when Adam and Eve were OUTSIDE the garden and started to have sexual relations OUTSIDE the garden (i.e., the book of generations starts counting "from their generations"), then Adam and Eve could have lived in the garden for a very long period prior to Adam and Eve being expelled from the garden, and we simply have no Bible record of the length of that period.
But once Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden, THEN the period of "generations" began and THEN the Bible counting began.
So that, when Genesis 5:3 says, "Adam lived 130 years and begot a son in his own likeness ... and called his name Seth", then that would mean that Adam is 130 years old since they were expelled and this period of "generations" began OUTSIDE the garden, but this book of generations says NOTHING about how long Adam and Eve lived IN the garden prior to that.
In other words, the meaning of Genesis 5 may be that Adam was NOT 130 years old when Seth was born, but rather that(after Abel was slain and Cain banished), Adam had lived OUTSIDE the garden for 130 years when he begot Seth, and so on.
So from Genesis 5 on, the account of Genesis has to be FACTUAL and then each chapter dovetails factually into the next.
Further, the account of Adam and Eve sinning in the garden has to be taken factually since that sin passed on to the descendants of Adam and Eve in their "generations" outside the garden.
And, we can assume that this sin IN the garden occurred very close to Adam and Eve's EXPULSION from the garden, since the LORD expelled them from the garden BECAUSE of this sin.
So, as to Genesis 1 and 2, we need to take them factually as to it saying that God created the "earth and all that is therein", while we readers just don't know exactly WHEN that creation occurred, we only know THAT it occurred and we need to take it factually THAT it occurred.
Likewise we need to take Genesis 3 factually in that God CREATED Adam and Eve, but we don't need to know WHEN that creation actually occurred since Adam and Eve may have lived in the garden for a long time before they sinned just prior to their expulsion.
Then Genesis 4 needs to be taken factually because now Adam and Eve are OUTSIDE the garden and the period of "generations" starts OUTSIDE the garden, and now the Bible begin to count the 6,000 years, from their expulsion from the garden and when this period of "generations" began.'
From there on everything in the book of Genesis needs to be taken as factual, leading to Genesis 12 with Abram being called, leading to Isaac, and leading to Jacob and his 12 sons who became the nation of Israel.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
Thanks Carol - I read the thread which was very interesting. A factual interpretation of Genesis (whether or not you believe in an old or young earth) isn't part of the mainstream English Anglican theology so I'd never heard the arguments before.
To be honest, there are quite a few differences in the thrust of the teaching here (or certainly in the churchs I've attended). I don't think I've ever heard a sermon on Revelations (the occasional bible study maybe) or 'end times', certainly nothing on young earth or the rapture (pre or post trib) or arguments for and against 'once saved always saved'.
Pretty much the focus is on the new testament messages like repentance, salvation and being a christian.
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Hi ahar,
You make some good observations here. But I feel I would be doing an injustice to the Bible to offer only a brief answer. I just posted "The Scarlet Thread of Redemption", hoping you'll have a chance to read through it.
TB125 also has great information about the Bible at his website:
http://www.christianityetc.org/bible.php
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
Carole, Wildb and Michael, thanks for your answers, very interesting.
Zeena just couldn't resist posting about evolution (and nothing useful about it anyway) even though I specifically said I wasn't posting about it. Ah well, there's always one.
Anyway Carole et al, if you don't mind me paraphrasing your points to make sure I understand:
- You have to take scripture in the context of the day and it is a modern invention to assume that it is a story or parable.
- Jesus quoted scripture as the final authority and as truth (e.g. the Jonah example WildB gave), and there would have been no question as to whether it was an accurate account
- One of the key precepts of the bible is that Jesus came to fulfil prophesy, and so those parts of the Old Testament need to be accurate and literal
- Arguing against a factual interpretaton leads down a slippery slope. Pick and choose is then possible and could extend to any part of the bible
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN INSPIRATION AND REVELATION
It is of the greatest importance, in considering the theme of inspiration, to distinguish it clearly from revelation.
The most cursory perusal of the Scriptures reveals the fact that they consist of two different kinds of records: first, records of truth directly revealed and imparted to the mind of the writer by God, and which he could have learned in no other manner (such, for example, as the story of creation); and second, records of events that occurred within the writer’s own observation, and of sayings that fell upon his own ears (such as Moses’ account of the Exodus, Paul’s account of his interview with Peter at Antioch). In the one case, the writer records things that had not been revealed to man before; in the other case, he records facts which were as well known to others as to himself.
Now, revelation is that act of God by which He directly communicates truth not known before to the human mind. Revelation discovers new truth, while inspiration superintends the communicating of that truth.
All that is in the Bible has not been “directly revealed” to man. It contains history, and the language of men, even of wicked men. But there is absolutely no part of the Bible record that is not inspired. The history recorded in the Bible is true. The sacred writers were so directed and influenced by the Spirit that they were preserved, in writing, from every error of fact and doctrine. The history remains history. Things not sanctioned by God, recorded in the Bible, are to be shunned (2 Tim. 3:16). Nevertheless, all these things were written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is inspiration.
This distinction should be definitely and clearly understood, for many of the most plausible arguments against the full inspiration of the Scriptures have arisen from the fact that this has been either unrecognized or ignored.
Though all Scripture is inspired, it does not stamp with divine authority every sentiment which it reports as uttered by the men of whom it speaks, nor does it mark with divine approval every action which it relates as performed by those with whose biographies it deals. In the book of Job, for example, inspiration gives with equal accuracy the language of Jehovah, the words of Satan, and the speeches of Job and his three friends; but it does not therefore place them all on the same level of authority. Each speaker is responsible for his own utterances. Neither Satan, Job, nor his three friends spoke by inspiration of God. They gave utterance to their own opinions; and all that inspiration vouches for is that no one of them is misrepresented, but that each one spoke the sentiments that are attributed to him in Scripture. So, again, the fact that David’s cruelty to the Ammonites is recorded in the book of Kings does not imply that God approved it any more than He approved the king’s double crime of murder and adultery, which “displeased Him.” The inspiration of the Book vouches only for the accuracy of the record.
(The Great Doctrines of the Bible)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Zeena
Advanced Member
Member # 7223
|
posted
Devolutionary is more like it ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
2 Timothy 3:13
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
--------------------
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
Well ahar, I just typed a whole bunch of stuff, and hit ctrl-v and replaced it all with something from the clipboard. PTL!
Personally (let me start over), I cannot affirm either way. No one can, however, I entertain the possibility of the Old World Theory. For when I was young, Dinosaurs were mythical, though the world believed in them. Then they started (in my lifetime) to find skeletons. This made me think. Then in recent times there has been a lot of scientific stuff come out about many things, including the age of the universe, and DNA, etc. This makes me think, and I see possiblities, that by the way, do not rule out the Biblical account. It simply means that the way that we intrepet the Biblical account may be naieve.
Do I believe that the evolutionists have it right? Not at all. But there are some things found in their foundational assertions that may not be wrong. They have just built an incorrect theory around these things.
But I was saying, before I erased everything, that God works through the natural! I offered as evidence the story of Joshua marching around the walls of Jerico. I was saying that Joshua had a relationship with God, and was obedient. And it is like this: without that relationship, Joshua wouldn't have known to march around Jerico and wouldn't have known what he would've missed if he had not obeyed. Wouldn't that be sad! But God knew that there would be an earthquake; and relationship with God rewarded Joshua with this knowledge. So relationship is paramount. But we super spiritualize it, when it was actually more simple than we conjure up in our imagination when we read the account.
For example, when Moses went to Pharoah to proclaim, "Let my people go," it is to be noted that Pharoah 'duplicated' Moses miracles up until the last one. At least, what befell Egypt didn't appear to Pharoah as miracles. They were able to come up with 'natural' explanations for what took place. And as it is written, "Pharoah therefore, hardened his heart," because he didn't accept this as being from God. Perhaps he just thought that Moses was lucky. But it is clear that God was working through the natural and Pharoah didn't see God.
The same is true for the crossing of the Red Sea! Someone did the math, and in order to get the number of Israelites across the dry lake bed in the few hours that it took according to scripture, they would have had to cross in numbers a few thousand abreast! This means they would have been crossing in an area a few miles wide. But I was conditioned to think that they had a foot path perhaps as wide as an automobile.
And gosh, there is so much that could be said. They have traced the DNA back to the beginning of man, nearly to Adam. That I found interesting. For when God breathed His Spirit into man, man became a 'living soul'. Soul, it says. So to me, man could have been somewhat evolutionary, and when he developed to a point that was right in God's timing, God breathed His Spirit into man. Is that to say that man was only a monkee before that? Who can know. But based on DNA evidence, which traced early man to a place on the continant of Africa, which appromates the Bible account of the Garden of Eden, I am intrigued.
In short, I believe there is nothing wrong with believing the Biblical account as is popular to do. It suffices. But scripture says that we cannot know His ways, that they are beyond understanding.
I believe that the Ark happened. However, there are things to be noted about it. When the Bible says that the 'world' flooded, we conceive of the entire globe being under water. It may be? But world would have meant to them the 'known world', at that time. About the animals, did he pull in two of everything? Only if God personally involved Himself could that have happened. But I do believe that animals were herded onto the boat. Perhaps, if the whole world was not flooded, that other animals survived out there. But do I believe the account? Absolutely, even if I don't know how it happened.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Helpful Definitions
Several definitions can illumine our understanding of the Bible as the Word of God.
Is accepting the Bible as the Word of God the same as taking the entire Bible literally? The question “Do you believe the Bible literally?” is like the question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Either a yes or a no answer convicts the one who responds. Whenever the question is asked, the term literal needs to be carefully defined.
A “literal view” of the Bible does not mean we do not recognize figures of speech used in Scripture. When Isaiah said “the trees of the field will clap their hands” (Isaiah 55:12), and the psalmist said “mountains skipped like rams” (Psalm 114:4, 6), no rational reading of these figures would view these in literal terms. There is poetry, prose and other literary forms used. A literal view interprets any passage in the sense the authors intended it to be received by readers. This is the same principle one employs when reading the newspaper, where it is remarkably easy to distinguish between figures of speech and those statements a writer intends his readers to take literally—especially on the sports pages!
By contrast, if we do not take the Bible literally, we can easily evade the clear intent of the authors. Such a view would take certain biblical events (for instance, the Fall of humanity or miracles) as nonfactual stories recorded only to illustrate and convey spiritual truth.
Those holding this view would say that it compares to the saying, “Don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg.” Its truth does not hinge on the literal factuality of the existence of a goose or a golden egg in Aesop’s fable. Then, this view says we need not insist on the historicity of biblical events and records to enjoy and realize the truth they convey. Some writers have applied this principle even to the cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The expression “taking the Bible literally,” therefore is ambiguous and must be carefully defined to avoid great confusion.
To summarize, first, the application of this logic evades the clear intent of the words grammatically and syntactically. It misses the overall unity beginning in Genesis of God’s covenant to deliver “all the world” and fulfilling it literally in Jesus Christ. Second, to apply this principle leaves biblical events such as the cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ as merely nonfactual stories of no importance. Third, this view leads to a subjective pick-and-choose interpretation removing any thought of divine biblical inspiration. The expression “taking the Bible literally,” therefore, is ambiguous and must be carefully defined to aid understanding.
“The Bible is inerrant” is another important teaching that needs to be carefully defined . What does inerrancy mean and what does it not mean? This too can be misunderstood. A general definition: In the original manuscripts, the thoughts God wanted written were written. The words the writers used were guarded by God.
Twentieth-century standards of scientific, historical precision and accuracy on the biblical writers does not hold true for any ancient writings. For instance, the Scripture describes things phenomenologically—that is, as they appear to be, even as they appear to us. It speaks of the sun rising and setting. Of course, we know that the sun doesn’t actually rise and set but that the earth rotates. We use sunrise and sunset, even in an age of scientific enlightenment, because this is a convenient way of describing what appears to be happening. Consequently, we cannot charge the Bible with error when it speaks phenomenologically. It speaks in this way, as have people of all ages and cultures.
The same standards of exactness in historical matters were not used in ancient times. Although illustrations abound of the wars, dynasties and reigns of kings in the Bible, round numbers were used rather than precise figures. Today we also do this. When the police estimate a crowd, we know the figure is not precise but close enough for their purpose.
Some apparent errors may be errors in transcription when hand copying the texts. Gutenberg invented the printing press and printed the first Bible in Latin in the 1450s. Although tedious, hand copying had been the method used previously to make Bibles during the centuries before Gutenberg. Remarkably, evidence has demonstrated the overall accuracy of the text from copy to copy over time with very minor mistakes due to the utmost care given each copy.
In comparing these thousands of biblical documents, some problems as yet do not yield a ready explanation. We can freely admit this, remembering many times in the past when possible discrepancies in a text were resolved when more data became available. Therefore, the logical position would be, where there are areas of seeming contradictions, to hold the problem in abeyance. We can admit our present inability to explain and await the possibility of new data. The presence of problems does not prevent us from accepting the Bible as the supernatural Word of God.
(Know Why You Believe)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Zeena
Advanced Member
Member # 7223
|
posted
"I was wondering, why does Genesis theologically need to be literally true - what is the relationship with the main themes of the bible which mean that is genesis is a story rather than fact it undermines everything (the resurrection etc)"
Because God spoke and it was so.
--------------------
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Is the Bible true? If so, how can I know it is true?
You might expect us at International Bible Society to say, "Yes, the Bible is true." Who could blame you for being a bit skeptical; I can hear you say, "Of course, they claim it's true! It's their main product!" Yes, that's so, but we'll do our best to bring you to our heartfelt conviction: the Bible is the truth! In the end, of course, only God himself can lead you to confess, as Jesus did in John 17:17, "Your word is truth."
Many brilliant people deny that the Bible is true, so obviously sheer intelligence is not the key to faith in the Bible. Jesus gives us an insight when he said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32, NIV) That sense of freedom in your soul which Jesus mentions is one way to gauge the truth of the Bible. That is, you'll be free from the horrible compulsion that you have to earn God's approval. You'll be free from fear about your eternal destiny, and free from the grip of slavery to your pride. In other words, the results in your life will demonstrate the truth of your faith! Mere intelligence alone can never give that freedom.
http://www.ibs.org/bibles/about/6.php
Is The Bible True?
Is the Bible true? The Bible is a history book that’s supported by archaeology, and a prophetic book that has lived up to all of its claims so far. The Bible is a collection of 66 ancient texts written by 40 distinct writers over a period of approximately 1,600 years. The claim of divine inspiration may seem dramatic (or unrealistic to some), but a careful and honest study of the biblical scriptures will prove to be a profound undertaking! Start here…
http://www.allaboutgod.com/is-the-bible-true.htm
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
Jesus taught that what happened to Jonah happened.
Jonah.1
[17] Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Matt.12
[40] For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Jesus’ View of Scripture
Most significant of all, however, is Jesus’ view of the Scripture. What did he think of it? How did he use it? If we can answer these questions, we have the answer from the incarnate Word of God himself, the One about whom the Bible spoke.
Jesus’ attitude was transparently open about the Old Testament. He states emphatically, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18). He quoted Scripture as final authority , often introducing the statement with the phrase, “It is written,” as in his encounter with Satan in the temptation in the wilderness (Matthew 4). Before his death he spoke of himself and of events surrounding his life as being fulfillments of the Scripture:
How then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way? … But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled. (Matthew 26:54-56)
When Jesus first started teaching, he sat in the synagogue in Nazareth where he grew up. An attendent handed him a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. Jesus unrolled the scroll and began to read the eight-hundred-year-old document. He read Isaiah 61:1-2, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. Every eye was fixed on him, intent on his next words, which were “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Imagine the electricity after he announced he had fulfilled a prophecy written eight hundred years previously. Luke records, “All … were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips” (Luke 4:22). The watching crowd wanted him to do miracles. Yet they felt a restraining reverence for him as he read these words:
The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4:18-19)
Perhaps his most sweeping endorsement and acceptance of the Old Testament was when he declared with finality, “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35, emphasis added).
If, then, we acknowledge Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, it would be a contradiction in terms, and strangely inconsistent, if we rejected the Scripture as the Word of God. This would find us in disagreement with the One Savior whom we acknowledge to be the eternal God, the Creator of the universe.
Some have suggested that in Jesus’ view of the Old Testament, he accommodated himself to the prejudices of his contemporary hearers. In other words, he went along with his culture’s views on some issues. The theory is, since the teachers in the synagogues accepted it as authoritative, he appealed to the Old Testament to gain wider acceptance for his teaching.
As the Nazareth incident above shows, grave difficulties beset this thesis. Jesus’ recognition and use of the authority of the Old Testament was not superficial or peripheral. It continued to be the heart of his teaching concerning his person and work. Otherwise he would be guilty of grave deception in his teaching. Moreover, why would he accommodate himself in some points and not on others? This is doubtless an untenable position.
(Know Why You Believe)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Zeena
Advanced Member
Member # 7223
|
posted
quote:
In the case of creation, if someone is already convinced that the pseudoscience of the religion of evolutionism has proven evolution to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, such persons typically will not approach Bible study on this issue with an open mind and let it speak for itself. Instead, they will engage in highly creative Bible interpretation to make all the irreconcilable conflicts between creation and evolution somehow fit with each other. For example, God went out of his way to define the creation "days" of Genesis as literal 24-hour days (see how long is a "day"). But in spite of this fact many well meaning but misguided Christians engaged in what can only be described as tortured Bible interpretation to try to somehow "make" those days into billions of years each.
Source --> http://www.creationists.org/eisegesis.html
--------------------
Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.
Posts: 749 | From: Toronto, Canada-EH! | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Greetings ahar
This is a great topic. I hope you won't mind if I post a lot of information about it for whoever is interested.
Knowing that God created the world around us, and ourselves as part of it, is basic to true religion. God is to be praised as Creator, by reason of the marvelous order, variety, and beauty of his works. Psalms such as Psalm 104 model this praise. God is to be trusted as the sovereign LORD, with an eternal plan covering all events and destinies without exception, and with power to redeem, re-create and renew; such trust becomes rational when we remember that it is the almighty Creator that we are trusting. Realizing our moment-by-moment dependence on God the Creator for our very existence makes it appropriate to live lives of devotion, commitment, gratitude, and loyalty toward him, and scandalous not to. Godliness starts here, with God the sovereign Creator as the first focus of our thoughts.
(Concise Theology)
If you get a chance, watch the DVD The Privileged Planet. http://www.illustramedia.com/tppinfo.htm
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
Thanks for the reply Betty - so for you it is a black and white situation, either everything is literally true or it is a lie.
What if the creation described in Genesis were a story rather than a factual account, you're saying that it would mean that it could be argued that anything could be a story?
Is it an interpretation thing, that the bible always gives makes it clear what is a parable and what isn't (e.g. when Jesus tells parables to illustrate a point) and there is no such direction in Genesis?
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Betty Louise
Advanced Member
Member # 7175
|
posted
I take the Bible literally. I believe God created the world in 7 days.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
--------------------
Notice He says and the evening and the morning were the sixth day. The sounds like a regular day to me.
To me it is important to believe the Bible, because once you start thinking this part is not the truth, then you begin to doubt other parts of the Bible.
But all this said the most important thing is to be saved.
God bless you.
betty
--------------------
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
Posts: 5051 | From: Houston, Texas | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
Morning all
Before I start, I'm not trying to debate Genesis, Darwin, Evolution etc etc - I'm asking a question.
The English anglican tradition has always held that not all parts of the old testament are literally true (e.g. Noah and the Ark, creation of the world in six days etc etc). Within Anglicanism they never found a theological difficulty with some things being stories and others (like the gospels) being an accurate account.
I was wondering, why does Genesis theologically need to be literally true - what is the relationship with the main themes of the bible which mean that is genesis is a story rather than fact it undermines everything (the resurrection etc)
Now, I know some of you will be itching to fire off a scathing reply about Darwinism. Please resist. This is a sensible question, and I would like sensible answers not related to explaining why the theory of evolution is wrong!
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
