Religion?

metalinmyveins wrote:

Tall Tyrion, I'm impressed with your overall knowledge regarding carbon dating, but the facts are that 6,000 years that the earth has supposedly been around is just routinely laughed at.

Well first, I would not insist on 6,000 years as the age of the earth, but yes, the date range that I would estimate (6-10k) would be laughed at by a lot of people, but so what? Plate techtonics was laughed at when it was first proposed back in the early twentieth century, but now it is widely accepted.

Science advances when people challenge the current paradigms, not when current paradigms are defended as absolute truth. Right now, creation scientists are coming up with some really good theories which explain our physical world without contradicting Scripture or having to twist Scripture into a pretzel to do it.

Quote :

Scientist could be off 10,000 years here or there, but when we're talking about things that are nearly 100,000 years old...who cares. It still puts to rest the 6,000 years old number, which has nothing to stand on.

Well, I do disagree, but again, I'm not looking for a big debate, only seeking to put forth my views and let people know that taking the first three chapters of Genesis non metaphorically does not mean that you jettison real science.

I do believe that the earth is no more than the 6-10 thousand year range, but that is not necessarily the age of the entire universe. For those who might be interested, I would recommend Russell Humphries book Starlight and Time which discusses a white hole cosmology that explains how a six thousand or so earth can be reconciled with a universe that is millions of years old.

Tall Tyrion wrote:

Well, I do disagree, but again, I'm not looking for a big debate, only seeking to put forth my views and let people know that taking the first three chapters of Genesis non metaphorically does not mean that you jettison real science.

I do believe that the earth is no more than the 6-10 thousand year range, but that is not necessarily the age of the entire universe. For those who might be interested, I would recommend Russell Humphries book Starlight and Time which discusses a white hole cosmology that explains how a six thousand or so earth can be reconciled with a universe that is millions of years old.

I would recommend a great book called "Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives" by Peter C. Bouteneff, a professor of theology at a seminary where he discusses how the early Church Fathers read Genesis Chapters 1-3 and how the Genesis narrative in those first 3 chapters came to be. Very interesting material, as most of the early saints looked at those 3 chapters as myth/allegory and rarely if ever read it literally.

GrandNational wrote:

I would recommend a great book called "Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives" by Peter C. Bouteneff, a professor of theology at a seminary where he discusses how the early Church Fathers read Genesis Chapters 1-3 and how the Genesis narrative in those first 3 chapters came to be. Very interesting material, as most of the early saints looked at those 3 chapters as myth/allegory and rarely if ever read it literally.

While that would be interesting, in Exodus 20:1 which is not only inspired by God, it was directly inscribed by God, He makes it clear that He created in six literal days. There is no Scripture that I am aware of that suggests that Genesis 1-3 should be read in anything other than in a literal manner. While I respect the opinions of the early church fathers, I do not place their opinions above the plain words of Scripture. They would agree with that as well.

Tall Tyrion wrote:

GrandNational wrote:

I would recommend a great book called "Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives" by Peter C. Bouteneff, a professor of theology at a seminary where he discusses how the early Church Fathers read Genesis Chapters 1-3 and how the Genesis narrative in those first 3 chapters came to be. Very interesting material, as most of the early saints looked at those 3 chapters as myth/allegory and rarely if ever read it literally.

While that would be interesting, in Exodus 20:1 which is not only inspired by God, it was directly inscribed by God, He makes it clear that He created in six literal days. There is no Scripture that I am aware of that suggests that Genesis 1-3 should be read in anything other than in a literal manner. While I respect the opinions of the early church fathers, I do not place their opinions above the plain words of Scripture. They would agree with that as well.

This could become a circular argument. I don't have access to the Hebrew texts to understand its wording ( I doubt you know Hebrew yourself), plus, to think that God would create the world in 6 literal days of 24 hour intervals is really limiting His power and binding Him to our understanding of time and not His. If the sun was created on the 4th day, how was time measured? How come there are 2 creation stories? Genesis is not a scientific work, it's a spiritual text dealing with salvation history. Treating the Church Fathers as a matter of opinion is not an option considering that it was them that decided more or less what books would be in the Bible and which ones were disputed/apocryphal, and their understanding of Scripture should be of value to us in understanding many of the hard parts of Scripture even if/when we don't agree.

By the way Ex. 20:1 and onward is dealing with the Commandments, He is not making it clear that He created in 6 literal days, as you wrote.

Just to chime in, and I don't know if this has been brought up, but one fact that gets raised with this debate is that when the astronauts landed on the moon, they were estimating that there would be over 6-8 feet [2-2.6 meters] of "moon dust" on the surface of the moon. They calculated that from theory that the earth is millions of years old. When they landed, there was less than 2 inches, which, ironically, they calculated to be between 6000-7000 years worth of collect.

I grew up SDA and although I don't go to church [I do still honor the Sabbath, loosely follow the Mosiac dietary guidelines, believe that the 10 commandments are God's law and cannot be broken or "nailed to the cross", etc] or really believe in organized religion, alot of what I was taught made/makes sense to me. They also believe in the 6 literal days of creation. One thing is for sure, there is fact and fiction on boths sides of the debate, so, for me, it is hard to be tunnel-visioned by either science or belief.

SAXON1500 wrote:

Just to chime in, and I don't know if this has been brought up, but one fact that gets raised with this debate is that when the astronauts landed on the moon, they were estimating that there would be over 6-8 feet [2-2.6 meters] of "moon dust" on the surface of the moon. They calculated that from theory that the earth is millions of years old. When they landed, there was less than 2 inches, which, ironically, they calculated to be between 6000-7000 years worth of collect.

I grew up SDA and although I don't go to church [I do still honor the Sabbath, loosely follow the Mosiac dietary guidelines, believe that the 10 commandments are God's law and cannot be broken or "nailed to the cross", etc] or really believe in organized religion, alot of what I was taught made/makes sense to me. They also believe in the 6 literal days of creation. One thing is for sure, there is fact and fiction on boths sides of the debate, so, for me, it is hard to be tunnel-visioned by either science or belief.

SDA? - Seventh Day Adventist?

I was raised Catholic, went to evangelical churchs and have serious issues with organized religion too - seen the abuse of power. Just look at the catholic church or one church I attended for 6 years - they like to call themselves a group of churchs but is really a demonation, or as I like to refer to them, a cult and they do fit the literal traslation. Evolution is a theory, not fact. Is the earth only 6000 years old? The evidence seems to point other wise. Ourday is calculated on how long it takes the earth to rotate one turn. A day is a different period of time on Mars or Saturn. A years is MUCH longer on Pluto. Did God create all this? I do believe that God did.

GrandNational wrote:

plus, to think that God would create the world in 6 literal days of 24 hour intervals is really limiting His power and binding Him to our understanding of time and not His.

I don't see it that way. I'm not limiting God, I'm limiting myself. I don't tell God how He created us, I let Him tell me how He did it. If we accept that the Bible is God's Word to mankind, then taking Him at His word is not limiting Him at all.

Quote :

If the sun was created on the 4th day, how was time measured?

By a period of light and dark that was approximately 24 hours long. The Revelation says that God will do away with the sun and He Himself will provide us with light (Rev.21:23). I believe that during the three days before He created the sun, He provided the earth with light. There are a lot of reasons why I believe that, not the least of which many ancient cultures (and some modern ones) worship the sun. I think God was showing that He was greater than the sun and not dependany on it to provide light for this world.

Quote :

How come there are 2 creation stories?

I don't believe that there are. Genesis chapter 1 is an opening statement showing all of creation, and chapter 2 is an expansion of day six that adds more detail.

Quote :

Genesis is not a scientific work, it's a spiritual text dealing with salvation history.

Absolutely, and I believe that there were theological reasons for many of the things God did, but I also believe that it was written as real history. If you disagree, that's cool, but that is what I think.

Quote :

Treating the Church Fathers as a matter of opinion is not an option considering that it was them that decided more or less what books would be in the Bible and which ones were disputed/apocryphal, and their understanding of Scripture should be of value to us in understanding many of the hard parts of Scripture even if/when we don't agree.

I agree, and I treat their opinion of Scripture with a great deal of respect, I just don't place it on a level with Scripture. Another way to look at it is to examine the words of the Creator Himself (Jesus). Jesus quoted from the book of Genesis more than any other book, and each time he treated it as real history.

Quote :

By the way Ex. 20:1 and onward is dealing with the Commandments, He is not making it clear that He created in 6 literal days, as you wrote.

He is making it clear that He was expecting the Jewish people to follow His pattern of creation by working six days and resting the seventh. To me, a more interesting question is "Why did God take so long to create the world?" If we accept the existance of an omnicient, omnipotent being who transcends time and space, then could He have created the world in one day? Sure He could have. How about one second, or even no time at all? Why not, huh?

So why did He choose to do it in seven days? As a pattern for us, I believe. As a matter of fact, it was popular during Martin Luther's day to say just that, that God had created the earth in just one day. I love his response to that. He said "If you cannot understand how this could have been done in six literal days, then allow the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are."

All I'm trying to say here is that as a Christian, if God's word says one thing and a majority of scientists say another, I choose to believe God word, and I believe that there is excellent scientific grounds upon which to do so. If you disagree, that's OK by me. we don't have to agree on everything.

thejokeriv wrote:

Did God create all this? I do believe that God did.

I think that's the most important thing. I like arguing about these things, but I hope to remain friends and brothers and remain respectful as we do so.

I think God is a girl.

Quote :

SDA? - Seventh Day Adventist?

10-4.

SAXON1500 wrote:

Quote :

SDA? - Seventh Day Adventist?

10-4.

Roger

Tall Tyrion, I respect your point of view, some of which I agree and some of which I disagree, but I appreciate your well thought out answers. I don't think anyone has ever really been able to pin down Genesis Chapters 1-3, so it's interesting to see the different interpretations.

I actually found an interview with the author I had mentioned earlier. If you are interested, skip the first 10 minutes of the interview and he'll come on. Let me know what you think.

http://www.myocn.net/index.php/CRTL-Archives/CRTL-The-Story-of-Creation-How-the-Fathers-Understood-Genesis.html