MennoNet.com

Did Adam have the appearance of age?

Josh wrote:

RZehr wrote:That is true, but it’s worth noting that for hundreds of years Christians believed in Genesis 1, while also understanding Jesus being a figurative door.

I don’t think the fall in acceptance of a literal 6 day creation is unrelated to modernism.

As happens often, Christians became seduced by the worlds ideas of evolution and became open minded instead of canon minded. And because the Christians couldn’t handle the scoffing of society, they try to balance the two ideas.

It’s a rather big assumption that Christians used to believe in Ken Ham-style Genesis literalism, particularly his demands that we believe in a specific age of the universe (despite him changing this exact number in the 1980s).

Speaking of rather big assumptions, do we believe in a literal 6 day creation, or do we believe in “Ken Ham-style Genesis literalism, particularly his demands that we believe in a specific age of the universe (despite him changing this exact number in the 1980s)”?

RZehr wrote:

Josh wrote:

RZehr wrote:That is true, but it’s worth noting that for hundreds of years Christians believed in Genesis 1, while also understanding Jesus being a figurative door.

I don’t think the fall in acceptance of a literal 6 day creation is unrelated to modernism.

As happens often, Christians became seduced by the worlds ideas of evolution and became open minded instead of canon minded. And because the Christians couldn’t handle the scoffing of society, they try to balance the two ideas.

It’s a rather big assumption that Christians used to believe in Ken Ham-style Genesis literalism, particularly his demands that we believe in a specific age of the universe (despite him changing this exact number in the 1980s).

Speaking of rather big assumptions, do we believe in a literal 6 day creation, or do we believe in “Ken Ham-style Genesis literalism, particularly his demands that we believe in a specific age of the universe (despite him changing this exact number in the 1980s)”?

As for me and my house....

Joy wrote:Did Adam have the appearance of age?

Yes

Joy wrote:Did Adam have the appearance of age?

Genesis isn't entirely specific about Adam, but it seems clear that Eve was created in the prime rib of life.

ohio jones wrote: Genesis isn't entirely specific about Adam, but it seems clear that Eve was created in the prime rib of life.

One of my biggest regrets was not meeting you in person when I lived in Indiana. I fear the place we met would never be the same and they would have to close it down and scrub it to ensure it stayed pun free.

Joy wrote:Did Adam have the appearance of age?

The chicken definitely came before the egg. God created all things mature - when God drove Adam from the garden, all living things were able to reproduce.

Hats Off wrote:

Joy wrote:Did Adam have the appearance of age?

The chicken definitely came before the egg. God created all things mature - when God drove Adam from the garden, all living things were able to reproduce.

Of course.

RZehr wrote:

Josh wrote:

RZehr wrote:That is true, but it’s worth noting that for hundreds of years Christians believed in Genesis 1, while also understanding Jesus being a figurative door.

I don’t think the fall in acceptance of a literal 6 day creation is unrelated to modernism.

As happens often, Christians became seduced by the worlds ideas of evolution and became open minded instead of canon minded. And because the Christians couldn’t handle the scoffing of society, they try to balance the two ideas.

It’s a rather big assumption that Christians used to believe in Ken Ham-style Genesis literalism, particularly his demands that we believe in a specific age of the universe (despite him changing this exact number in the 1980s).

Speaking of rather big assumptions, do we believe in a literal 6 day creation, or do we believe in “Ken Ham-style Genesis literalism, particularly his demands that we believe in a specific age of the universe (despite him changing this exact number in the 1980s)”?

And yet "science" expects us to automatically accept its constantly changing claims as to the age of the universe. My high school science teacher was required to teach evolution, and she passed off exact figures by saying, "Give or take a few million/billion years."(Of course it must be noted, it was back in the Dark Ages that I was a teenager. )

My post could have been written better.
What I'm saying is that we believed in a "young" earth back when 6,000 years was considered quite old.
And this belief is based squarely on Genesis 1, in Faith. This belief is not dependent on proof.

So when hundreds of years later Ken Ham comes along with proof, that is neat, but really is not what our belief is based upon. Ken Ham can be proven wrong on something and our belief system will not need much re-calibration. I don't even know or care what Ken Ham says the exact age of the earth is. But on that subject, who has changed the specific age of the earth more often and more drastically in the last century, Ken Ham or evolutionists? The evolutionists have.