- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by sonhouseNo. I said I am not surprised that elements of the text of the Hebrew Bible seem to be reflected in some other ancient cosmologies.
Ok, so it is clear from that bit that creationists have no problem with the Egyptian account, thinking them BOTH correct?
I would give first priority to the Holy Bible every time. The other sacred writings are interesting. But God Himself is conveyed to us in the inspired words of the Holy Bible.
It is the life long task of the skeptic to deflect away from his conscience the words of the Bible. He has many, many methods to do this. One way is to persuade himself that he need not be concerned with the Bible because fragments of similar sayings abound elsewhere.
This, he hopes, will nullify the importance of the Bible. Satan sends many words into the world so that the man will say "Oh, these words of the Bible are simply more of the same as these other words on Egyptian walls and Persian myths."
It is better to take the word of the Bible and pray over the things you read. Have a good conversation with God about what you read. You may not do this. But some others will. And an honest heart, even if it have some problems with what God has spoken, God will receive and hear, I feel.
23 May 14
Originally posted by sonshipSo are you a Young Earth Creationist? Literally 6000 year old everything?
No. I said I am not surprised that elements of the text of the Hebrew Bible seem to be reflected in some other ancient cosmologies.
I would give first priority to the Holy Bible every time. The other sacred writings are interesting. But God Himself is conveyed to us in the inspired words of the Holy Bible.
It is the life long task of the skeptic ...[text shortened]... eart, even if it have some problems with what God has spoken, God will receive and hear, I feel.
23 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseWhoever writes it down first wins the prize as having made it up.
http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/creation.htm
Jewish/Christian creation tale is actually just a plagiarized Egyptian myth shoehorned in MUCH later.
This tale started out about 6,500 years ago......
Great going Egypt! 😵
Now as for it being factual, everybody knows you can't trust an Egyptian.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 May 14
Originally posted by sonhouseLet's separate two things from each other here.
So are you a Young Earth Creationist? Literally 6000 year old everything?
1.) Is there six days involved in Genesis one ?
2.) How long ago was this matter dated at ?
Can you see that you are dealing with at least two questions there ?
I do not believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old.
Most of my reasons are biblical rather than related to salt in the ocean or dust on the moon or radiometric dating or things like this.
While I would say an Old Earth makes more biblical sense, I also consider that I am influenced by scientific knowledge established in my era too.
I do not believe the age of the universe is provided to us in the Bible.
My Christian brothers and sisters who are persuaded that the age of the universe is provided I do not consider somehow "second class" Christians. I would hope they would not consider me "second class" or having capitulated to naturalists and athiests or Evolutionists for that reason.
But that is up to them. When we Christians stand before Jesus Christ I do not think He will be too concerned with how many years or centuries off we were in believing when He created the universe.
I think He will have other priorities which more relate to the "new creation".
"So then if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away; behold, they have become new." ( 2 Cor. 5:17)
I think that God will examine how much being "in Christ" has resulted in the old way of living passing away and we becoming a new creation in Jesus.
While I do have opinions on Genesis 1, I would like to keep my Christian priorities straight.
23 May 14
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipWell, that is actually interesting.
Let's separate two things from each other here.
1.) Is there six days involved in Genesis one ?
2.) How long ago was this matter dated at ?
Can you see that you are dealing with at least two questions there ?
I do not believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old.
Most of my reasons are biblical rather than related to salt in the ...[text shortened]...
While I do have opinions on Genesis 1, I would like to keep my Christian priorities straight.
Do you put the universe at 14 bill like science says?
Do you believe in a 4 or 5 billion year old Earth?
I didn't know anyone who used the bible to come to that conclusion.
What biblical source to you refer to as per the age of everything?
I though old Gen was it. Other books too?
If you took the 4.5 billion year old Earth seriously and added in the 6 day tale, you come up with 750 million years per day.....
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 May 14
4 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseYou mean you haven't seen RJHinds and myself debate this in the past ?
Well, that is actually interesting.
Do you put the universe at 14 bill like science says?
Do you believe in a 4 or 5 billion year old Earth?
I didn't know anyone who used the bible to come to that conclusion.
What biblical source to you refer to as per the age of everything?
I though old Gen was it. Other books too?
If you took the 4.5 billion y ...[text shortened]... old Earth seriously and added in the 6 day tale, you come up with 750 million years per day.....
What is important to know, I think, is that the enemy of God had a pre-history backround before the creation of man. How extensive his kingdom was, I do not know. How long this kingdom lasted, I do not know.
Speculations of the age of the universe will come and go and change with the revisions of science theories. What is important to the understanding of the Bible, I think, is to realize that before Adam was created Satan had a glorious, pre-adamic existence and authority. And it ended in a divine judgment.
I believe this judgment, this cataclysmic depriving of his world was the reason the the earth was seen by the seer, in the second verse of Genesis, as waste and empty.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep." (Genesis. 1:1,2 Recovery Version)
The two words in Hebrew used to translate into "waste and emptiness" form a kind of expression the equivalent sound we could grasp by the expressions -
"topsy turvy" or "helter skelter" .
The words used together in this fashion elsewhere in the Old Testament are used to describe a divine overthrow of judgment.
The note on Genesis 1:2 of the Emphasized Bible expresses this.
Heb: tohu wa-vohu. Evidently an idiomatic phrase, with a play on the sound (" assonance" ). The two words occur together only in Is. xxxiv. 11; Jer. iv.23; examples which favour [sic] the conclusion that here also they describe the result of previous overthrow. Tohu by itself is found in several other texts (Deu.xxxii.20; Job xii.24; Ps. cvii.40; Is. xxiv.11; etc.).
Following this exegesis, I believe that between the verses saying God created the heavens and the earth in verse 1 and the earth being seen as tohu va-vohu in verse 2 is some unknown and unspecified interval of time. Conceivably hundreds or thousands or millions or more solar years of time could have occurred in that gap.
I think if some pre-adamic cataclysm took place that rendered the earth and possibly more or the solar system damaged under judgment, and God restored, recovered, and did some further creating in six days this statement would STILL be true.
"For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it." (Exodus 20:11)
I do not agree that a pre-Adamic destruction of some kind and a latter restoration from destruction makes Exodus 20:11 not a true statement.
23 May 14
Originally posted by sonshipAll that said, it sounds like you still don't buy a multi BILLION year history.
You mean you haven't seen RJHinds and myself debate this in the past ?
What is important to know, I think, is that the enemy of God had a pre-history backround before the creation of man. How extensive his kingdom was, I do not know. How long this kingdom lasted, I do not know.
Speculations of the age of the universe will come and go and change with ...[text shortened]... e kind and a latter restoration from destruction makes [b]Exodus 20:11 not a true statement.[/b]
You think it more likely to be in the millions?
I did not see your debates with RJ on this issue. I know he thinks it was october 4, 4004 bc or whatever. And that based on dudes living 700+ years which really messes with the timeframe if in fact they only lived their normal 3 score and 10....his universe would be only about 4000 years old.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
23 May 14
Originally posted by sonshipWRT the age of the universe, there seem to be two Christian "bottom lines" available:
Let's separate two things from each other here.
1.) Is there six days involved in Genesis one ?
2.) How long ago was this matter dated at ?
Can you see that you are dealing with at least two questions there ?
I do not believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old.
Most of my reasons are biblical rather than related to salt in the ...[text shortened]...
While I do have opinions on Genesis 1, I would like to keep my Christian priorities straight.
1. ~6000 years
2. It's not important.
23 May 14
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Gap Theory is what sonship believes in.
All that said, it sounds like you still don't buy a multi BILLION year history.
You think it more likely to be in the millions?
I did not see your debates with RJ on this issue. I know he thinks it was october 4, 4004 bc or whatever. And that based on dudes living 700+ years which really messes with the timeframe if in fact they only lived their normal 3 score and 10....his universe would be only about 4000 years old.
http://www.icr.org/article/why-gap-theory-wont-work/
24 May 14
Originally posted by sonhouseYou were asking about sonship and his view of creation in contrast with mine. I think this preacher and perhaps the astronomer Hugh Ross probably present that point of view of trying to fit a long period of time, perhaps billions of years, in a supposed gap between Genesis chapter 1, verse 1 and verse 2. That is why he is an old earth creationists.
And I am supposed to care because?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 May 14
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsHugh Ross does not present a so-called Gap Theory.
You were asking about sonship and his view of creation in contrast with mine. I think this preacher and perhaps the astronomer Hugh Ross probably present that point of view of trying to fit a long period of time, perhaps billions of years, in a supposed gap between Genesis chapter 1, verse 1 and verse 2. That is why he is an old earth creationists.
Hugh Ross presents what is usually called Day Age Theory.
I first learned about the unspecified interval in a book by G.H. Pember called "Earth's Earliest Ages". And in that book Pember argues against Day Age.
Example:
[ "Moreover, the command in the Decalogue to give one day (of 24 hours) to rest, and this the seventh day, is based upon the fact that God rested from His creating work on that day, which seems to imply that the period of His rest was of the same length as that during which His creatures are to rest.]
But still further; these days are mentioned as comprising an evening and a morning, as being made up of day and night. Here, then, is another warning against the figurative interpretation, which we must carefully avoid ... "
That is page 66 of Earth's Earliest Ages by G H Pember published by Kregel.
The whole third chapter deals with the days is entitled "The Six Days". And it manifestly is not what Hugh Ross teaches about each day representing an age.
Another quotation from the chapter:
We must now return to the ruin of the earth, the condition of which we can only conjecture from what we are told of the six days of restoration. Violent convulsions must have taken place upon it, for it was inundated with the ocean waters : its sun had been extinguished : the stars were no longer seen above it : its clouds and atmosphere, having no attractive force to keep them in suspension, had descended in moisture upon its surface : there was not a living being to be found in the whole planet (Gen, ii. 5).
Now the withdrawal of the sun's influence had probably occasioned that the glacial period the vestiges of which, as geologists tell us, are plainly distinguished at the close of the Tertiary Age. And the same cause will also account for the mingling of the waters that were above the firmament with those that were below it. Both effects are well illustrated by the following extract from one of Herschel's "Familiar Lectures on Scientific Subjects" [p.48]
While Ross and Pember both speak of an old earth Ross has a Day Age interpretation and Pember has a Gap - Destruction / Reconstruction view.
24 May 14
Originally posted by sonshipWell, I don't agree with either one. I believe the Holy Bible states that the creation time was only six literal days with no time for billions of years to be inserted. Perhaps you will be able to convince sonhouse of your point of view since he already believes in the billions of years.
Hugh Ross does not present a so-called Gap Theory.
Hugh Ross presents what is usually called Day Age Theory.
I first learned about the unspecified interval in a book by G.H. Pember called [b]"Earth's Earliest Ages". And in that book Pember argues against Day Age.
Example:
[quote] [ "Moreover, the command in the Decalogue to give one d ...[text shortened]... arth Ross has a Day Age interpretation and Pember has a Gap - Destruction / Reconstruction view.[/b]
24 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI go by evidence. I don't need an ancient Egyptian fairy tale.
Well, I don't agree with either one. I believe the Holy Bible states that the creation time was only six literal days with no time for billions of years to be inserted. Perhaps you will be able to convince sonhouse of your point of view since he already believes in the billions of years.