posted
i have a question. perhaps for anyone who actually is a YEC.... why? is there any proof (im not trying to be sarcastic or whatever) but it seems to me, God is a pretty big fellow, and has got a good amount of resources. So he could probably handle a really old earth.
For instance. perhaps those magical 7 days in the beginning of the bible... perhaps they were much longer then our 24 hour days. perhaps many years long. like, a thousand years each day or something. because, if you think about it, it would take a freaking long time to name all of the animals as Adam was asked to do on the 6th day. so ... just maybe? perhaps? anyone?
sorry to interupt the conversations involving all the dinosaur talk.
Posts: 34 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I have never been able to grasp is why this is considered a theologically important or even interesting question. From a religious viewpoint, why do we care when we were created? How does the answer to that change anything about how we live, treat others, love, worship, pray...?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
in response to my own post, i actually went and read all the posts instead of just skimming, and now i get the standpoint. i still disagree with YEC, but i understand.
and, i agree kmbboots.
Posts: 34 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Imagine you've just been given the ultimate map to running your life. You follow it to the letter, only to be told by someone else that, "hey, that map's not to scale."
or
Some fear that if one word, one idea that is in the Bible can be proven to be open to interpretation, then everything in the Bible can be open to interpretation.
If "a day" in Exodus does not equate one day on earth, then what else is open to adjustment? Perhaps Goliath wasn't really that tall, or the Flood didn't really flood the whole earth, or that Homosexuals really are not perversions unto the lord, or perhaps we aren't truly the chosen people.
Its a slippery slope once you allow even the slightest interpetation of the Bible. Next thing you know the world is full of people practicing Moral Relativism and eating Bacon Cheeseburgers for lunch.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do people insist on interpreting the words of the bible and stating that if that interpretation is not true the entire bible is bunk?
In no place does the Bible actually say, the universe is 6000 years old.
Why must people go to the most archaic passages in the Bible that are demonstratively the most symbolic of the entire Canon and then read them with more literalism then even the teachings of Jesus?
Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to be saved. I have to wonder that if that was the only passage we had from Jesus what sorts of crazy interpretations would manifest themselves in Christian churches. (Not trying to take issue with the doctrine of transubstantiation)
Genesis says Adam and Eve were immortal until they ate some fruit. Does anybody really believe that Adam and Eve literally ate some fruit that embued them with knowledge and also modified their bodies in such a way as to make them mortal?
It is not impossible to read the scriptures and ask perhaps the GOD who arranged for them to be written for clarification. TRUST ME its out there.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should we take your TRUST ME over all the other TRUST MEs out there, who say precisely the opposite? This is exactly the reason that faith shouldn't be used as an argument, even to yourself.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But...there ARE people who believe it all literally. If there are problems, they ascribe it to bad translations or imperfect human understanding.
Some faiths teach that the bread and wine are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Not symbolic. Real. So that particular counter-example for Christians only works for some sects, not all.
The longevity of the patriarchs and lost immortality of Adam and Eve is not just taken to be literally true, but the ages given for the folks and there descendants is the basis for tracking back the Earth's age to the days of creation. So...yeah, taken as literally true along with the rest of it.
I don't ascribe to that position, but I know it's anything but internally inconsistent. That particular "attack" on the YEC folks just really doesn't work to reach them on any level.
And Dan is absolutely correct, the reason they won't hear of a different age for the Earth is that it opens the door to question the veracity of everything in the Bible.
I personally feel that it puts faith on far too shaky a ground. It demands that God never speak metaphorically, for one thing. Which truly is demonstrably false if one takes Jesus at his word (um, he TELLS us he is speaking in parables...). So, if Jesus, as God, can use metaphor, why couldn't God do so all along?
In fact, even some of the stuff that is obviously meant to have a literal meaning might also have a metaphoric meaning. How clever is this God?
Ans: At the very least, more clever than us.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why should we take your TRUST ME over all the other TRUST MEs out there, who say precisely the opposite? This is exactly the reason that faith shouldn't be used as an argument, even to yourself.
gah I can't respond to you right now KOM, maybe tonight.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well...rather than wait for later, I can at least see that KoM and BlackBlade are using the words "TRUST ME" to mean two different things.
BlackBlade isn't saying that he's got a handle on the one and only correct information -- he's only saying that if you seek answers you will find them.
KoM is reacting, I think, to a different kind of TRUST ME -- the one that says simply "here's the right answer, take it and live your life accordingly." In other words, received knowledge with nothing else to see or learn, ever.
BB is actually pointing, I believe, to something far removed from taking received knowledge as the one and only source of truth.
Correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB is certainly asserting that the answer is, in fact, out there; he does not seem to have considered the possibility that other people get other answers.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: BB is certainly asserting that the answer is, in fact, out there; he does not seem to have considered the possibility that other people get other answers.
Oh come now KOM, I can be quite certain that I have found the right answers, and yet be completely certain that others that earnestly seek answers will find them.
Surely you won't slight me for being confident in my own conclusions?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know the New Testament by heart, but isn't there a verse that basically tells us to believe whatever we want to about the smaller details, since in the face of believing in Christ as savior, they don't matter? (I believe it was a letter from an apostle to a new church, when a disagreement about what to believe arose.)
I mean, God isn't going to say, "Oh, you truly believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord, but believe Evolution too. Down you go." There isn't an asterisk in the Bible that says, "Any who accept Jesus will be saved*"
*Unless you believe in everything but YEC.
In the end, what does it matter how the Earth was made but that we're here? Make the most of life and enjoy it; it's far too short to be spent caught up in the details of something that don't matter.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And thus ends all semblance of polite discussion.
KoM -- why do you bother coming into threads like this, or responding to people if all you intend to do is shut down the discussion?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And thus ends all semblance of polite discussion.
KoM -- why do you bother coming into threads like this, or responding to people if all you intend to do is shut down the discussion?
*agrees
i love the way cs. lewis illustrates the issue of extraterristial life.
but more then anything, id like to say this.
God is a big guy. really big. seriously, hes like... God. so perhaps we cant understand him. we can understand some of the simple qualities of this earth, with the simple sense we have. but all everyone seems to be looking at are the 'known' facts, and we are all drawing these lines of who's on who's side, while none of it particularly pertains. i dont think anyone here who fully believed the Torah as truth, a practicing Jew, is going to suddenly change their mind. rather, we're all just getting pissed.
'you belief sucks' 'no, yours sucks'
so perhaps we can return to discussion where we actually state facts and give some semblence of reasoning. perhaps.
now im sure my post will be picked apart. GO! do it. but please, reasoning.
Posts: 34 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: ...isn't there a verse that basically tells us to believe whatever we want to about the smaller details, since in the face of believing in Christ as savior, they don't matter?
I mean, God isn't going to say, "Oh, you truly believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord, but believe Evolution too. Down you go."
In the end, what does it matter how the Earth was made but that we're here?
The problem I have with these ideas is that they encourage blind faith and discourage questioning the details. The details DO matter because they provide evidence for or against arguments made by either side.
Does that make sense to anyone else?
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: ...isn't there a verse that basically tells us to believe whatever we want to about the smaller details, since in the face of believing in Christ as savior, they don't matter?
I mean, God isn't going to say, "Oh, you truly believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord, but believe Evolution too. Down you go."
In the end, what does it matter how the Earth was made but that we're here?
The problem I have with these ideas is that they encourage blind faith and discourage questioning the details. The details DO matter because they provide evidence for or against arguments made by either side.
Does that make sense to anyone else?
I don't think the details matter. And I think it encourages blind faith to say that all details do matter. But I also think that really, the core competence (oh no, I have marketing plan on the brain) of Christianity is love through belief in Christ. I mean, my definition of Christian is pretty much someone who believes in Christ. So does it matter if they believe in Him on a boat or on a train, in a car or on a plane? Saying that every detail matters opens up the floor for spectacular finger-pointing about who's REALLY a Christian because they believe that you shouldn't be close friends with "non-Christians" or that women shouldn't wear pants or whatever.
posted
That's quite a read. I gave up fighting this a long time ago. Neither side is willing to believe the other side has an argument. I myself stand Firmly on the side of Creation. I also have reason to believe that the world (including the universe) is approx. 6000 years old, that God made the the earth (and the rest of the universe) in 6 24 hour periods, that man and dinosaurs co-existed, and that Noah's flood covered the entire earth.
I would go into details but it is a tossing back and forth of beliefs that are more religion than science fact. I have seen in my life no evidence to either side of the debate that proves/disproves anything. I get somewhat annoyed that evolution is described as a fact/law when nothing of the kind has been (or can be) proven.
And just for the record; I, as a Christian do not belive that God has, does, or ever will Lie.
Posts: 8 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think our beliefs about the origins of humanity strongly affect our beliefs about the purpose of humanity and of life itself. In my opinion, those beliefs are closely tied to "Christian" thought. Believing we're here for a purpose and that our good thoughts and actions are not in vain makes a big difference in how we interact with the world. And Christ is a major player in advancing humanity's purpose in life.
Whether or not the earth is 6,000 years old or 2 billion doesn't matter quite as much as here it is, and we're on it.Posts: 144 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How does the answer to that change anything about how we live, treat others, love, worship, pray...?
Our purpose on earth is not necessarily to live, love, worship, pray, and be nice to others.
There's enough calling of plagues down from heaven, laying waste to entire nations, chopping off of heads, and booting moneychangers out of temples in the scriptures to suggest that being nice is not what we're all about.
That little incident of Abraham taking his son Isaac to be sacrificed should tell you all you need to know about our objective here on earth.
Knowing that the earth was created, knowing who created it, and knowing why it was created should leave no doubt in the minds of believers as to whom it is they should obey.
If we were all spawned from pond scum on an accidental planet, then whom do we obey? Does it matter? By what absolute measure are we of any worth?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Genesis says Adam and Eve were immortal until they ate some fruit. Does anybody really believe that Adam and Eve literally ate some fruit that embued them with knowledge and also modified their bodies in such a way as to make them mortal?
BlackBlade, aren't you LDS? (Sorry if I'm wrong about that.) Mormon doctrine is pretty much the above.* I'm not exactly sure where this is stated, but I think it is in either The Miracle of Forgiveness or in Jesus, the Christ, both of which are pretty much considered authoritative and are among the few books missionaries are allowed to read besides the "Standard Works" (i.e. the "Scriptures"). This was stated explicitly by the author (Either an LDS prophet or apostle) in response to the idea that the "fruit" was a euphemism and the sin was actually sexual.
(*Note I didn't say "Most Mormons believe . . . " Mormons, like members of all religions, believe many things on a personal level that are not official doctrine of their church and are even sometimes contrary to such.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not we all agree on such questions as "When was the earth created?" or "What will happen after we pass away?", the present reality will not be changed by merely believing something. I agree with BlackBlade in the sense that the truth is out there for all of us to find, but you have to to be willing to find it. Or in other words: keep an open mind. The chances of this happening are IMO impeded by the fact that most people who believe in God do not follow the first (and most important) commandment. Which was just God's way of saying 'keep an open mind'.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't the parable that immediatly follows that supposed to clear up that "who is my neighbor" question?
As for the Catholic belief in transubstantiation -it can't really be quite nailed down. "Literal" is a somewhat misleading word when talking about the bread and wine becoming the Body of Christ. It is a change in "substance" but not in "accidents" - form, taste, molecular structure, appearance etc.
As for metaphor - why does this possibility frighten Christians? Jesus clearly used metaphor. "I am the vine" doesn't mean that grapes were growing out of Jesus's elbow. We can know that we are created beloved children of God without concerning ourselves so much with the details of when and how that we forget the why.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots asked what is the theological importance of taking the Genesis account literally.
(1) If the Genesis account of man's creation and fall are not true, then the central theme of the Bible, that we need a Savior, who has been supplied in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is untrue.
(2) If the Genesis account is not literally true, then the theological method by which Jesus saves us--by becoming the Second Adam, the new federated Head of the human race, qualified to take responsibility for us in punishment for sin, and represent us in righteousness for life, is false.
(3) If the Genesis account is not literally true, then the reason the fourth commandment gives for keeping the Sabbath--"for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth...and rested the seventh day" is invalidated.
(4) Since the Bible says that God wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger on tables of stone, if what He said about creating the world in six days, then God Himself would be in error.
(5) My own personal view is that the universe cannot be vastly old, because God knew in advance that sin would come to present its deadly challenge, and He would have decided to get it over with ASAP. That is why He apparently created Lucifer first. The idea of God having the universe and angels and Lucifer, etc., waiting around for billions of years before finally the sin controversy broke out, is unreasonable.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caveat: I haven't read this thread, so this might have been said elsewhere.
One thing I find funny about this thread title that if I were a YEC, I would still believe that the earth is older that 6,000 years, but possibly younger than 10,000.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with that, mr_porteiro_head. I belive life on earth is 6,000 to 8,000 years old, and the physical earth and universe are 10,000 to 12,000 years old. I part company with those YEYU creationists who believe God created the entire universe during creation week.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me clarify my position by saying that while I don't believe you're right, I also don't believe you're wrong. I have a guess, but that's about it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: kmbboots asked what is the theological importance of taking the Genesis account literally.
(1) If the Genesis account of man's creation and fall are not true, then the central theme of the Bible, that we need a Savior, who has been supplied in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is untrue.
(2) If the Genesis account is not literally true, then the theological method by which Jesus saves us--by becoming the Second Adam, the new federated Head of the human race, qualified to take responsibility for us in punishment for sin, and represent us in righteousness for life, is false.
(3) If the Genesis account is not literally true, then the reason the fourth commandment gives for keeping the Sabbath--"for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth...and rested the seventh day" is invalidated.
(4) Since the Bible says that God wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger on tables of stone, if what He said about creating the world in six days, then God Himself would be in error.
(5) My own personal view is that the universe cannot be vastly old, because God knew in advance that sin would come to present its deadly challenge, and He would have decided to get it over with ASAP. That is why He apparently created Lucifer first. The idea of God having the universe and angels and Lucifer, etc., waiting around for billions of years before finally the sin controversy broke out, is unreasonable.
as for 1 and 2 - those don't have to be literal to be true. And I don't think that the fall is the central theme of the Bible. And I believe that Jesus coming to be salvation to the world has a much greater meaning and impact than making up for the sin of one man - we have all sinned and fallen short. Besides, God holding all men resonsible for the sin of one isn't terribly just now is it?
3) So you rest on Saturday do you? And God letting us know that rest is good for us isn't changed by the details.
4) God had fingers?
5) God isn't "in" time the same way we are. God is eternal. Maybe billions of years was what it took for humans to reach sufficient awareness for sin to be a meaningful concept to us. If not, how do you explain why God waited so long after Adam to become Jesus? Why wait thousands of years to save us from sin? He could have just done it the next "day" right?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(not talking God as Jesus here) Are they giant fingers? Or normal size? Do they have special fingernails that allow Him to carve stone with them? Does God have lungs? Does He need oxygen? What colour are His eyes? Hair? How tall is He?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, Mormons believe that God (the Father) has "a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's". Besides that fact, they make no specific assertions about it other than that our bodies are created in that image.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was my first reaction, too, porter, but I have to give kmbboots the benefit of the doubt because that's not her normal style. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I wasn't implying you weren't. I was agreeing with you on the ambiguity of the post in question. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not mocking you , Porter. But I do think that particular idea of God is pretty limiting and opens up all sorts of questions like "how can God be everywhere if God has a body".
It is also pretty odd that we talk about Jesus as the incarnation if God (not Jesus/God) was already incarnate.
And thank you both gor the benefit of the doubt. I can sound pretty snarky.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, yes I do keep the seventh-day Sabbath. I am a Seventh-day Adventist.
The fall of man is about as basic a Bible doctrine as there can be. If man is not fallen, then man does not need a Savior, just a therapist.
The theology of the Apostle Paul is abundantly clear that we are saved by Christ becoming our new Adam. "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive....And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven." (1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 45-47)
When Adam sinned, he was the entire human race, and he forfeited his stewardship over earth. It does not matter if we were not each there personally. The son of a slave is born a slave. But if the father is redeemed, then all the children are redeemed as well.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not mocking you , Porter. But I do think that particular idea of God is pretty limiting and opens up all sorts of questions like "how can God be everywhere if God has a body".
Of course there are questions. There are also answers.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, so was Mary impregnated the usual way, just by God? Porter, I would be interested in those answers.
And Ron, whatever day you rest, why does it matter that it was literal? As for needing a Saviour, that (for me) is not dependent on a literal Adam. We manage to sin and break our relationship with God all on our own - our own sins and failings are sufficient for that. It makes sense to me that Paul was also speaking metaphorically and using the metaphorical shorthand to make clear his point. As was usual practice during that time - and as was done by Jesus.
quote: The son of a slave is born a slave. But if the father is redeemed, then all the children are redeemed as well.
Still hardly just, though. And in literal fact not true. If a slave was freed, that did not automatically free his descendents.
These questions are not meant to be mocking. As a matter of fact I am a bit concerned with continuing as I don't know how to make these questions sound un-mocking and my intention is not to mock anyone's belief.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, I knew a Christian who said that at some time in the past, God divided Himself up into Father, Son and Holy Spirit, like a cell dividing itself into three parts. But then people started ridiculing him for likening God to an amoeba, and he shut up.
It is difficult even to conceive of the nature of God. We just have to go by what the Bible says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made....And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:1-3, 14; NKJV) Note that this says Jesus Christ was the Creator--or at least took an active part in the Creation of everything. (Therefore He Himself could not be a created being.)
This also was part of the Messianic promise in Isaiah 9:6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:so was Mary impregnated the usual way, just by God?
There is no LDS doctrine on how she became pregnant, beyond what it says in the New Testament.
I do not believe that God can physically be everywhere, or even in two places, at once. I do think, however, that God's power and influence can be everywhere at once.
Just as LDS do not believe in the standard Christian concept of an omnipotent God (we believe that he can do anything which can be done, but that there are some things which cannot be done, even by God, such as saving somebody who rejects the saving power of Christ), we don't believe in the standard Christian concept of an omnipresent God.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, the literal day matters because God said that is WHY the seventh day is the Sabbath. See Exodus 20:8-11: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. FOR in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. THEREFORE the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter - it seems that our (LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians) have less in common theologically than I assumed. That's okay - it just means that our various ideas of God and Christianity etc. should be considered separate things in these kinds of discussions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, and for me that means that it is important to keep some significant time holy and dedicated to God. I don't think that God gets too bent out of shape over which day. Again, our ideas of God may be too incompatible to understand as the same kind of Christianity.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, God can manifest Himself in any form that He wants. If He appears in the form of a man, His fingers are real fingers. Even more real than ours in a sense--where our fingers can touch stone, His can cut stone.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbbots, rather than guess about what God does or does not "get bent out of shape over," I think it is more reasonable to simply believe what God says, because if He did not care about it, He would not say it.
A man might point to a lineup of seven women, and say "One of those seven women is my wife. But God is not too particular if I regard any one of the seven as my wife at any given time. Whatever is convenient for me."
God did not say the Sabbath is "a" seventh day, He said it is "the" seventh day of Creation Week.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
