Jump to content


Photo

Death Before Adam's Sin


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#41 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 11 July 2011 - 11:08 AM

Then all created before the first sin were created to live forever. A world populated with people who can reproduce and live forever will eventually do what?...
And why did not Adam know Eve (as the Bible puts it) before sin, why only after sin? Which by the way supports what I am saying. An imperfect creation equals an imperfect God. It is by man's choice that makes God the "indirect" Creator of sin.


I agree Adam & Eve were created to live forever, but scripture is also clear that they were called to procreate BEFORE the fall. I highly recommend you consider Enyart's interesting view of this as presented by TeeJay in an earlier post in this thread.

I'm not aware of the Bible saying Adam didn't "know" Eve before the fall, since the Bible often uses "know" as a synonym with sex in such a context. IF it says this somewhere that I've overlooked, I would have to rethink my position.

Fred

#42 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 11 July 2011 - 01:23 PM

My problem with what you have said here, Fred, is that it forces a nice, neat, category for everyone's beliefs. I have always believed in a worldwide flood, a young mankind and a literal fall, but not a young EARTH and UNIVERSE. I thought I was an old-earther until I found out what you all say that the "old-earth" category entails.

#43 supamk3speed

supamk3speed

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 130 posts
  • Age: 24
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 July 2011 - 02:11 PM

I used to believe in the old earth theory, mainly because I was rooted in the teaching of evolution through school indoctrination. That was the last "athiest like" view I departed from. I can see how everyone's beliefs don't fit in a nice neat little package, but i really feel like if we conform the Bible's teachings to the world's view we aren't fully trusting in God. Just my opinion.

#44 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 11 July 2011 - 03:06 PM

I used to believe in the old earth theory, mainly because I was rooted in the teaching of evolution through school indoctrination. That was the last "athiest like" view I departed from. I can see how everyone's beliefs don't fit in a nice neat little package, but i really feel like if we conform the Bible's teachings to the world's view we aren't fully trusting in God. Just my opinion.

Welcome! Happy first post! :D

I know what you are saying. I love the YEC materials that I have learned from and plan to use with my kids. This way they won't be confused as to science and the Bible.

#45 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 11 July 2011 - 03:37 PM

My problem with what you have said here, Fred, is that it forces a nice, neat, category for everyone's beliefs. I have always believed in a worldwide flood, a young mankind and a literal fall, but not a young EARTH and UNIVERSE. I thought I was an old-earther until I found out what you all say that the "old-earth" category entails.


If you believe in an old earth then you are an old earther. :) The point about the gap theory is that it was eventually rejected by most old earthers over time, primarily because a global flood would rip apart their version of the geologic column. So if you remain an old earther due to certain scientific evidence, you need to explain how a global flood also fits the scientific evidence. Once you go down this path, I think you'll see that you either have to choose man's secular "science" and reject a global flood to remain an old earther, or accept the (vast) evidence against an old earth, and best yet, accept the plain rendering of Genesis.

Fred

#46 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 11 July 2011 - 03:58 PM

If you believe in an old earth then you are an old earther. :) The point about the gap theory is that it was eventually rejected by most old earthers over time, primarily because a global flood would rip apart their version of the geologic column. So if you remain an old earther due to certain scientific evidence, you need to explain how a global flood also fits the scientific evidence. Once you go down this path, I think you'll see that you either have to choose man's secular "science" and reject a global flood to remain an old earther, or accept the (vast) evidence against an old earth, and best yet, accept the plain rendering of Genesis.

Fred

Fred,
I considered gap theory, until I read up on the creationist literature more. But I never did feel peace about two floods, in light of how the fossil record provides continuous chronology of sedimentation. Gap theory teaches that a former age was destroyed by water and that is why the earth was covered by water in the beginning.

But what do you think? Do you think the earth was preexistant to the creation in Gen 1 or was it created at the same time as it says, the "earth was without form and void...?"

#47 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 11 July 2011 - 08:49 PM

Fred,
I considered gap theory, until I read up on the creationist literature more. But I never did feel peace about two floods, in light of how the fossil record provides continuous chronology of sedimentation. Gap theory teaches that a former age was destroyed by water and that is why the earth was covered by water in the beginning.

But what do you think? Do you think the earth was preexistant to the creation in Gen 1 or was it created at the same time as it says, the "earth was without form and void...?"



Hi AFJ... Yes, just as the plain rendering teaches, I believe earth was created on day 1, before the sun and stars on day 4.

Fred



#48 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 11 July 2011 - 09:58 PM

Hi AFJ... Yes, just as the plain rendering teaches, I believe earth was created on day 1, before the sun and stars on day 4.

Fred

Isn't there different wording used? A word for create referring to some things and a different word referring to others? If it is plain rendering wouldn't the same word be used in all circumstances?

#49 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 11 July 2011 - 10:08 PM

I believe there is a huge gap between a literal interpretation of Genesis (6 days, global flood), and a poetic or old-earth, local flood view.

This doesn't even include the huge scriptural problems with a local flood, for which there is literally no scripture evidence to support such a notion. So, not only is there little old earth support in the Bible, adhering to such a belief requires you to carry the baggage of also rejecting a global flood (virtually all old earthers now reject a global flood, the gap theory is pretty much dead other than a few stragglers).

Here is another problem with old earth:

Are thorns the result of the fall? If yes, how do you explain them from an OEC perspective, since we find thorns in the fossil record?

Fred


Thanks Fred.
I've been studying a lot of stuff, and the age of the earth hasn't been one of them, so I can't say too much until I've read more of the arguments from both sides.

I do believe in a literal whole earth flood.

Can you answer one question about Genesis 2? I thought it was a good old earth point, and I haven't looked for a young earth response yet.

On the sixth "day" God created Adam and Eve. The Genesis 2 account says that on the sixth day, Adam started the day by naming all the animals. I've heard some suggest that he observed their behavior first, and then named them accordingly. It's anybodies guess as to how many animals were in the garden, but how long do you think it took Adam to do all this?

Later, Adam was put to sleep and God made Eve. Adam responds "At last!" the man exclaimed. "This one is bone from my bone, and flesh from my flesh! She will be called 'woman,' because she was taken from 'man.'"

The old earth point is that it seems that quite some time had passed for Adam to say "at last." If only 12 hours had passed, it doesn't seem as likely that Adam would be lonely and yearning for one of his own yet.

Another point I've heard is from Genesis 1:11, where God says "Let the land produce vegetation..." The idea seems to be that time was given for plants to grow and reproduce and scatter their seeds - which would have taken more than a literal day.

On the other hand, when God said for the land to produce living creatures, it follows up by saying that "God made the wild animals according to their kinds." But with the plants, it doesn't say specifically that God made the plants, but that the land produced vegetation according to their kind. There is no qualifier saying God did all the heavy lifting.

So, in these two instances, the implication is that day 3 and day 6 consisted of events that would have taken longer than 24 hours. Even if I don't believe that those "days" took millions of years (which I don't), doesn't it seem evident by the events of the text that it was longer than 24 hours? Even if those "days" only took a few weeks?

#50 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 12 July 2011 - 12:48 PM

Isn't there different wording used? A word for create referring to some things and a different word referring to others? If it is plain rendering wouldn't the same word be used in all circumstances?



Why should we assume the two versions of the word (create vs made) are anything but synonymous? God uses 'create' in Genesis 1, but instead uses 'made' in Genesis 2:4 for the same event. Same goes with Psalms 121:2 - "My help comes from the Lord,Who made heaven and earth". The English also has two versions of this word, and no one would assume a different meaning, other than 'create' has perhaps a little more "umph" or pizzazz behind it. For example: "Last night I created a masterpiece on the piano, I made the song just for you!".

If there is a gap in Genesis, why would Jesus say "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' " (Matt 19:4)? Sounds like Jesus is YEC to me. :)


Fred

#51 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 12 July 2011 - 01:29 PM

Can you answer one question about Genesis 2? I thought it was a good old earth point, and I haven't looked for a young earth response yet.

On the sixth "day" God created Adam and Eve. The Genesis 2 account says that on the sixth day, Adam started the day by naming all the animals. I've heard some suggest that he observed their behavior first, and then named them accordingly. It's anybodies guess as to how many animals were in the garden, but how long do you think it took Adam to do all this?


Some estimates put the number of kinds of animals Adam would need to name at 2000. So, at a clip of one animal per 5 seconds, he could have done it in three hours. :) Also, I don't see why the context of Genesis 2 requires this task to be started and completed on day six.

Later, Adam was put to sleep and God made Eve. Adam responds "At last!" the man exclaimed. "This one is bone from my bone, and flesh from my flesh! She will be called 'woman,' because she was taken from 'man.'"

The old earth point is that it seems that quite some time had passed for Adam to say "at last." If only 12 hours had passed, it doesn't seem as likely that Adam would be lonely and yearning for one of his own yet.


Nowhere does it say that Adam said "At last!", which gives the illusion of "Its about time!" as if he were waiting a while. It was God who decided it would be good to give Adam a mate, not Adam. I'm sure however that Adam was absolutely thrilled with the gift he received. Eve was probably the most beautiful woman who ever lived, she would have been without a single blemish of any kind, her genetic load (as well as Adam's) would be zero. Hmm, I wonder if talking a lot is a mutation. Posted Image

Please consider the following. The Hebrew word for day is yom, and is essentially identical to the English word day - both can mean a literal day, and both can mean an era of time. In both Hebrew and English, we always know categorically what the word means based on the context. For example, whenever an ordinal is used with day, we know it means a literal 24 hour day. If I say, "I'm heading out of town on the 25th", we know I am referring to a literal day. If I told you I actually left on the 26th, you would not even remotely think it was due to poor grammar use, you would instead think I mispoke, or was delayed for some reason. If I told you "I'm going to respond to your post tonight", you know I mean a literal 24 hour day. If I respond a week later, and you ask why I didn't respond when I said I would, what if I said "well, I meant I would respond in a reasonable period of time". You would either think I used poor grammar, or just plain rude. So just like the Enlgish word for day, whenever the hebrew yom is used with an ordinal, or with a qualifier such as tomorrow or evening, it always, without fail, means a literal day. Now look what God did, He wants to make Himself crystal clear, with NO chance, I mean 0% probability, of misunderstanding the context of what He is saying:


Genesis 1:5-13:
God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
So the evening and the morning were the third day.

ETC...

I hope you see the point. There is no possible way, grammatically, to get anything but a literal day out of this passage. If there is something more than a literal day here, than God is bad at grammar. God was especially redundant in these passages, He wanted there to be no question that his creation transpired in a literal 6 days. For one last added emphasis, He repeats this in Exodus 20:11 - 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.

The only place in all of literature throughout the world that the context of the word day is not universally accepted can only be found in Genesis chapter 1 of the Bible. This makes perfect sense once we recognize the motive behind it - get people to doubt the rest of the Bible. If you can't trust clear grammar and history right out of the gate, why trust it the rest of the way through the book? If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do? (Psalms 11:3)

Fred

#52 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 13 July 2011 - 11:23 PM

So just like the Enlgish word for day, whenever the hebrew yom is used with an ordinal, or with a qualifier such as tomorrow or evening, it always, without fail, means a literal day. Now look what God did, He wants to make Himself crystal clear, with NO chance, I mean 0% probability, of misunderstanding the context of what He is saying:


So what about day seven? There is no evening or morning listed. Old earthers jump on this point. What do you make of it? By your definition, the potential is there that the seventh "day" was not a literal day - especially considering that the the word "day" used in the next verse definitely does not refer to a literal 24 hour period: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven."

#53 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 13 July 2011 - 11:50 PM

So what about day seven? There is no evening or morning listed. Old earthers jump on this point. What do you make of it? By your definition, the potential is there that the seventh "day" was not a literal day - especially considering that the the word "day" used in the next verse definitely does not refer to a literal 24 hour period: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven."

JWs say that this means that the seventh day is ongoing... and we are still in it.

Hebrews 4:3For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,

“As I swore in my wrath,
‘They shall not enter my rest,’”

although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5And again in this passage he said,

“They shall not enter my rest.”

6Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience,

#54 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 July 2011 - 04:40 AM

So what about day seven? There is no evening or morning listed. Old earthers jump on this point. What do you make of it? By your definition, the potential is there that the seventh "day" was not a literal day - especially considering that the the word "day" used in the next verse definitely does not refer to a literal 24 hour period: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven."


God rested on the 7th day so why say evening and morning?

If day 7 was not a 24 hour day, why did the Bible name it a day? If there is a different amont of time that is called a day in God's word, please show us. Arguing semantics to add what the Bible does not support is a slippery slope that many false doctrines come from. Because if you are going to look at God's word with such a microscope as you currently do to find fault, or justification for a belief, Then you will always find an argument, or justification for anything.

With due respect, that is the reason I quit posting when we were debating because you drive every subject into the ground all the way to China.

#55 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 14 July 2011 - 12:26 PM

So what about day seven? There is no evening or morning listed. Old earthers jump on this point. What do you make of it? By your definition, the potential is there that the seventh "day" was not a literal day - especially considering that the the word "day" used in the next verse definitely does not refer to a literal 24 hour period: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven."



Why should the Old earther pounce on day 7? If it is not a literal 24 hour day, how does this help the Old Earther? He still has to deal with the context of days 1-6 being literal. Nevertheless, the context of day 7 is that it clearly is literal since an ordinal is used with day. Can you think of any example where the nth day as an expression in any literature would be taken to be anything other than a literal day?

Also, in Exodus 20:1-11, is the 7th day literal, or a period of time? Does it make sense for us to get to rest longer than one day? If we extend this to the logic of the old earther, this means we get to rest for millions of years! Posted Image

I don't think the Old Earther gets anywhere near the vicinity of being able to justify their position with scripture.

Fred

#56 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 14 July 2011 - 12:42 PM

I find this all interesting. I don't and never did think that a creative day is millions of years... but JWs used to teach each one was 7,000 I think.

#57 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 14 July 2011 - 01:55 PM

So what about day seven? There is no evening or morning listed.


I don't think that this indicates that day 7 as described in Genesis was not a literal 24 hour day, but rather, that it "represents" an eternal day.

Man often uses non-existant "symbolic" things to illustrate "literal" existing things.

I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that God does things the oposite way around.
He always seems to use "literal" things to illustrate "spiritual" (symbolic) things.

For example, he instructed Solomon to build a literal temple, which we now know illustrates a spiritual temple. It was a shadow of what would come.

I think that using something "symbolic", such as a non-existent 24 hour day in order to symbolize something literal (billions of years) just goes against the grain of scripture. It is casting the "shadow" in the wrong direction - not pointing towards what would come, but to what was!!!

It seems like prophecy ... turned around..

#58 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 July 2011 - 11:39 PM

I find this all interesting. I don't and never did think that a creative day is millions of years... but JWs used to teach each one was 7,000 I think.


Whenever that's done, it's people trying to make the Bible conform to their view or supposed evidence of age.

#59 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 15 July 2011 - 12:18 AM

I don't think that this indicates that day 7 as described in Genesis was not a literal 24 hour day, but rather, that it "represents" an eternal day.

Man often uses non-existant "symbolic" things to illustrate "literal" existing things.

I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that God does things the oposite way around.
He always seems to use "literal" things to illustrate "spiritual" (symbolic) things.

For example, he instructed Solomon to build a literal temple, which we now know illustrates a spiritual temple. It was a shadow of what would come.

I think that using something "symbolic", such as a non-existent 24 hour day in order to symbolize something literal (billions of years) just goes against the grain of scripture. It is casting the "shadow" in the wrong direction - not pointing towards what would come, but to what was!!!

It seems like prophecy ... turned around..


Thank you. That was interesting and articulate. I'm not claiming to be an old earther. I've always considered myself a young earther, but if I can't question the validity of those beliefs, there's no reason to hold them. I want to hold a view that is consistent and answers more questions than it makes.

#60 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 15 July 2011 - 06:31 AM

answers more questions than it makes.

Well that would be the YE view!

I very much dislike it when someone holds staunchly to a view that isn't proven biblically or otherwise. I now try not to hold a view if it isn't clear. I always leave the disclaimer "we really don't know for sure".




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users