It is currently Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:12 am

HSC AffiliatesClick here for our affiliate link to Christianbook.comDonate to HSC

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Genesis
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:04 pm 

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 135
In answer to Sis, when I look at Genesis, I see God, the Creator, God's provision, God's love for what He created...all of it. But I don't see God using the story of creation as a challenge to decide what it means other than that God Is All and In All that He created. There's no fruit, imo, in the taking sides as to how old the earth really is. When "rightly dividing the Worth of Truth" I think it's wise to take a step back and answer whether in reading a specific passage, you're trying to be "right" or trying to become closer to God and to His creation and taking it a step further, acting on what it says. When I see anyone bringing up the topic of old earth, new earth, evolution, etc, it is usually about who's right. My apologies if I've offended.

 Post subject: Re: Genesis
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 2:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:05 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Searcy, Arkansas
LisaTX wrote:
If creation was the accepted fact for all, I don't think the idea of an old earth would exist. That idea became popular because of evolutionists. Before that, the common belief was a young earth. That doesn't mean no one would ever wonder about it, but it wouldn't be a popular and widespread belief. I do believe billions of years is an evolutionary belief. That doesn't mean I think Christians who believe in billions of years are evolutionists or are not saved, but I think evolution and billions of years go hand and hand. They only make sense together. One came about because it was needed to explain the other. To me, it's part of the evolutionary mindset. I think it's an attack on the Bible and Genesis by evolutionists and I think every Christian should stand against it in support of Biblical authority.

To me, it's not so much "does it matter?", but what the Bible says/doesn't say. If it said or supported billions of years, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But obviously, I believe the Bible supports a young earth and doesn't allow an opening for the belief in billions of years.

So, that's my opinion and none of it is said in a mean way or to condemn.

Actually, by the first century there were various schools of thought on whether the six days of creation were literal or representative of something else. The concept of an "old earth" was present WAY back when and it was Jewish Rabbis and early Christian leaders who were having the debates, not atheist evolutionists. It wasn't until the 17th century that the catholic church officially declared that the earth was created in the year 4004 b.c. The Bible says neither thousands of years nor billions of years, and it supports the possibility of either. This being the case, I always find it fascinating to look at what the Bible says and what science says and see where they match up.

Here are a few points along that line:
1) The Bible says that there was nothing and from that nothing, everything suddenly and instantaneously came into existence. The evidence for the "big bang" theory was actually first discovered/proposed by a catholic priest in the early 20th century and was called the "big bang" by atheists to mock it as crazy because according to all atheistic knowledge, the universe should not have come into existence that way. They came up with several alternating theories (steady state, cyclical big bang, etc.) to try to explain it, but they were all discarded and the accepted theory of cosmological origins now fits quite nicely with Genesis 1.
2) Mitochondrial Eve - in the 1980s, geneticists studying mitochondrial DNA determined that there was indeed one woman from whom every woman on earth was descended matrilineally. Scientists take different theories about this, but none deny that there was a single female from whom everyone was descended. Impressive.
3) Y-chromosome Adam - he is clearly misnamed, but scientists studying the Y chromosome passed from every father to every son have found that there was a man WHO LIVED SIGNIFICANTLY AFTER MITOCHONDRIAL EVE and from whom every man on earth is patrilineally descended. But wait, why would Y-chromosome Adam have lived after Mitochondrial Ever? Scientists say that it is because males are nature, but any Bible student could tell you that he ought to have been named Y-Chromosome Noah. Think about it.

One thing to remember is that the genealogies used to construct an "age" are provably not complete. This is not to say that the Bible is in error, this is to say that the Bible was not written by modern people for modern reasons, nor was it written by western people for western reasons. It was written by God for God's reasons and in His way.

Some examples:
1) Where did Cainan go? In Luke 3:35-36 we see that Sala was the son of Cainan who was the son of Arphaxad. In Genesis 10:24 we see that Arphaxad begat Salah etc. The point is not that there is an "error", the point is that unless Luke is mistaken or in error, the Genesis listings are NOT complete and should be viewed as indicative of ancestry, not necessarily paternity.
2) How old was Moses' dad?!?!? Moses' father was Amram according to Exodus 6:20. If you go back to the previous verses, you find that they list it as going Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses. When you consider that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years, that seems like a small number of folks. Then you start looking at their ages Levi: 137 years, Kohath, 133 years, Amram, 137 years, Moses, 80 years old when they left and you think "O.K., I could see it if they had kids late in life." But wait - Kohath was one of the people that was there from the beginning of the time in Egypt according to Genesis 46:11. This means that the 430 years started no later than the year of Kohath's birth, and that Kohath's age (133)+ Amram's Age (137) + Moses age at the time of the Exodus would have to add up to 430 if the men in question had the child in the lineage the year they died. Simple math tells us that the numbers just don't add up and the genealogy is not complete. This is not indicative of an error, just a genealogy that is not written to be complete or to allow us to calculate specific dates of things hundreds of years apart.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Theme designed by © 2008
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]