All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
The Earth's Creation
This is taken from another discussion. What are your views on the Creation? 6 days? Earth is a billion years old?
Views: 1159
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ScribeD on
-
RoyW, Yes, Evolution. Just using an abbrev. As for your questions:
The problem is always in the assumptions. Always. Both Creationists and Evolutionists make certain assumptions. For instance, since God says sin leads to death (in humanity) then there could be no death (of animals) prior to the fall. That is an assumption which is not explicitly stated, we assume that it is implied. I think it is probably valid, but it is an assumption which could be flawed. Jesus does not say specifically (to my knowledge).
I allow, fully, that the entirety of the universe could be 6,000~ years old. It's hard to reconcile with some data, but I think I have already made my point here that it is possible, based on the assumptions given by the evolutionary scientists and big bang theory - based on an expanding space-time continuum. However, I also fully acknowledge that there could be other answers to this problem, which would not contradict the actual written scriptures.
For instance, I see nothing explicitly stated in scripture that removes the possibility that Genesis 1 could be referring strictly to our Galaxy. I've seen a supernova happen, with the naked eye. It's pretty sudden. A Galactic formation event could have taken place in 3 days. While the rest of the universe could already have been in existence.
On the other hand, since quantum mechanics seems to indicate that the entire universe is a gigantic simulation, an illusion as it has sometimes been called, it is also entirely possible that the whole enchilada was formed in 3 days.
Since big bang theory says the cosmos was formed within a trillionth of a second, then frankly I don't see an issue with a 6 day creation process. Either one seems utterly preposterous based on our finite mind's abilities of understanding. So, I'm going to accept that God did it exactly as he said... but perhaps my understanding of what he said is not fully developed yet.
We ought to reserve the tangential discussion about Hell for another post. this one is getting long already. But, my short summary on Hell is that it must be real - Jesus was convinced he needed to suffer for my sins to keep me from it.
-
Permalink Reply by Seek on
-
I gotta ask....
If science has "proven" the earth is as old as it says...
What do we say of the science that claims to have "proven" the big bang? ;-)
-
-
-
I never did "get" the big bang theory. The way I see it, they can call us crazy Christians. But if one can believe that an explosion created various lifeforms with intelligence, plus plants, seas, earth, etc....I'd be happy to help them find a padded room somewhere. LOL
-
-
Permalink Reply by RoyW on
-
Of course, many of the same theories supported by Ross are rejected by what some call modern science. Ross would agree that all human species here on earth are descendants of Adam and Eve. He would also support the belief that Adam and Eve were special creations of God and not descendants of any kind of common ancestor. His position is as rejected by what you refer to as science as is the position of young earth creationists. Eric, if you are now aligning your beliefs to Ross, I would consider that an improvement and would offer congratulations.
However, it still comes back to the issue to accepting God's Word or rejecting God's Word in favor of modern science. Why do these reject the six days but accept Creation? I think that is an important question to consider. What they do is to deem themselves more scientific than those who hold that the six days of Genesis are literal. Eric, if I am correct, you reject Genesis one altogether. You do not believe it holds any value whatsoever other than to explain that God made the heavens and the earth. You do not accept the earth before the sun do you? Do you accept plant life before the sun? Do you accept that God made everything after its own kind or do you believe that Adam and Eve were descendants of other creatures? I do not think that you yet know what you believe concerning evolution. Ross does not believe that Adam descended but was a special creation and that makes him as much a lunatic in the eyes of the many modern scientists as any of the rest of us. The second that someone declares that Adam is a special creation of God, he becomes at odds with modern science. Are you saying, Eric, that Adam was a special creation of God made from the dust of the earth and not descended from any prior creature. If so, I again congratulate you for I believe one has to have faith to believe is such a thing. That is the reason I would acknowledge that Ross is a Christian. That is what he believes. He is as much a wacko as any of the rest of us.
However, what he failed to be able to do was to show how a day used with a number can mean something other than a literal day. He jumped all around that question finally saying something like the boys back at the lab can explain that. He was aware of a verse in Hosea (I don't know what he is talking about in Daniel - I was aware of the one in Hosea) that might indicate that a day used with a number could mean a period of time. Even if that were true, which that is a real stretch, it cannot be used to mean billions of years. That is impossible. There is no way in Scripture to make a day reflect such a period of time. One has to step outside of Scripture to do so. Starlight travel is what everyone so afraid to accept God's Word as true. How do you accept Creation and reject days?
Again, Eric, if you are accepting that all humans on earth are descendants of Adam and Eve (which you have not yet admitted) and that Adam and Eve are special creations of God made from the dust of the earth and not descendants of other creatures, congratulations. That takes faith to believe in such a thing. If our only difference is the age of the earth, we are not far apart.
-
-
Eric,
If I have misrepresented you, you certainly do have that apology. I must admit that sometimes I do have problems understanding what you are saying. I may have concluded incorrectly.
Blessings to you.
RoyW
-
Permalink Reply by Tammy on
-
ROFL Roy on sometimes I do have problems understanding what you are saying. He, & now I'm including Scribe, have went way up, above & clean shot over my head. You start throwing science in there, I'm DONE. Dumb as a bag of rocks when it comes to that. So, Eric, I have read your replies. The reason I haven't responded to a lot of it esp those directed towards me is because I can't get a grip on what you saying most of the time. Sorry for that but I am trying to hang in there & read then all anyways.
-
-
Eric you have lost me. I'm thinking maybe we've spoken before as you're aware of my job based on a previous comment....but I can't recall. I have short term memory. Comes with the blonde hair. But I'm not sure what you mean about knowing what I do. I'm not an accountant if that's what you mean.
-
-
-
Out where?
Sorry, couldn't resist. LOL
Ok, I knew you'd mentioned peer review in another thread and I was wondering then thought maybe I'd spoken to you on it. But just so you know, I'm not one. I just hand hold a few of them. And they're all bald too by the way.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Richard L. Broch, Sr. on
-
Roy,
Excellent answer to my question, well said.
Grace and Peace to you and yours.
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
