I'm not sure we can actually read when 'time' was created, but if we believe in a 6 literal day creation, then the creation of sun moon and stars does need to be linked with the creation of man. As far as I know, the 6000 year chronology is based on a 6th day creation of Adam, and according to the account, the stars et al were created 2 days earlier.Josh wrote:The age of the universe (ie the creation of time itself) has nothing to do with how God created life and man.God knows, and that's fine. What I dislike even more, though, is that this view almost requires eliminating the fall of man and an actual Adam and Eve. That turns Christ and Paul into liars and removes the need for the plan of salvation. I can't go along with that.
Answers in Genesis likes to link the two. I think we would do well to unlink them.
Evolution
-
- Posts: 2511
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
- Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship
Re: Evolution
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
- Josh
- Posts: 23806
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
- Location: 1000' ASL
- Affiliation: The church of God
Re: Evolution
How can you say something is 2 days old before God created the concept of the earth and the sun and the sun rising and setting?
0 x
-
- Posts: 2511
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
- Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship
Re: Evolution
Josh, I'm not trying to start or continue an argument. Do you deny that what I said is what the text suggests? Who was the writer's source? Do you believe that the writer and his source were messing with our minds about everything in the beginning of Genesis? Seems that is already the stance you have taken concerning any possibility of a non-scientific explanation for distant starlight.Josh wrote:How can you say something is 2 days old before God created the concept of the earth and the sun and the sun rising and setting?
Seems to me that the text suggests that God created distinct periods of day and night and then created heavenly bodies to mark the times and the seasons. That's pretty backwards, right? Scientifically unsound right?
I'm pretty sure God does not always do things the way we would expect or understand. Who would have thunk it that God would send 'part' of Himself, (and that's not a theological statement by the way), to die so that He could redeem us, and bring us to new life. It is this conundrum which is infinitely more important than the dead end discussion we are trying to have about Genesis, of which we have very little solid knowledge anyway.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Re: Evolution
Because the Bible says so - and so I believe.Josh wrote:How can you say something is 2 days old before God created the concept of the earth and the sun and the sun rising and setting?
0 x
Re: Evolution
https://globalnews.ca/news/4060192/flat ... paign=2018
Flat earth conference to be held at West Edmonton (Canada) mall this year. The latest issue of the Anabaptist Forum had a letter to the editor about Flat Earthers. And I don't recall hearing of this idea until just recently in this thread!
Flat earth conference to be held at West Edmonton (Canada) mall this year. The latest issue of the Anabaptist Forum had a letter to the editor about Flat Earthers. And I don't recall hearing of this idea until just recently in this thread!
0 x
-
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
- Location: Alberta
- Affiliation: Western Fellowship
- Contact:
Re: Evolution
Inventing the concept would normally come before the equipment to implement it...Josh wrote:How can you say something is 2 days old before God created the concept of the earth and the sun and the sun rising and setting?
0 x
Re: Evolution
Interestingly, a man confided in me yesterday that since he has started looking into the flat earth it has been strengthening his faith and honest look into the scriptures.Wayne in Maine wrote:If one is a true die-hard literalist then this is not true. The Hebrew word רקיע (raqia), translated as "firmament" in the KJV and commonly as "expanse" in newer translations, was always understood, before modern science, to refer to a solid surface. Both Jewish scholars and Christians agreed (I can cite sources later if you wish) and even mocked the idea that there was nothing but empty space above the earth (as some Chinese cosmologies suggested).lesterb wrote:
None of the statements in Genesis have to be understood as requiring a flat earth, or non-Copernican solar system.
Additionally Genesis is quite clear that this solid barrier has water above it and that the sun, moon and stars move inside of it. Ancient Jewish and Christian scholars debated whether the sun moved under the earth at night to return to its morning position or if it traveled over the top of the dome.
The point is this: it is only because we observe the earth from an entirely different (scientifically informed) perspective that we even translate raqia as an "expanse" instead of a solid surface. We cannot disbelieve what our eyes see, so we change our perception of what raqia literally means.
We turned a solid surface with gates in it into a gaseous atmosphere with vacuum above it, we placed the moon, sun and starts millions and billions of miles away instead of somewhere inside this dome.I'm not quite sure that this possible in the time scale. I think some shifting is possible, as is obviously done elsewhere, by skipping generations in genealogies, etc. But I don't see how we can turn thousands of years into billions, such as is required by what you are advocating.
Indeed.God knows, and that's fine.
Why? How? If we had to take the entire book of Genesis as allegorical (and I'm not saying we do!) I would still choose to follow Jesus. Even if Genesis said that the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle I would still believe that Jesus is who He said He is, and I would believe what his chosen emissaries wrote.What I dislike even more, though, is that this view almost requires eliminating the fall of man and an actual Adam and Eve. That turns Christ and Paul into liars and removes the need for the plan of salvation. I can't go along with that.
Is our faith in Jesus or is it in theological position concerning an ancient book? Do we put our trust in Christ or do we put our trust in Ken Ham?
0 x
-
- Posts: 620
- Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:57 pm
- Location: Near Detroit MI
- Affiliation: ACCA Friend
Re: Evolution
By micro-evolution you must be referring to natural selection, which I believe most creationist Christians believe. Natural selection is the process of variation within a created kind. Where the problem comes in is that evolutionists will typically show some natural selection happening and they claim it as evidence of evolution.RZehr wrote:I marked #3. But I don't believe in cross specie evolution, I only believe in micro evolution.
One thing not in the poll that I would definitely vote yes on is this:
The Earth is roughly 6000 years old.
0 x
Convert to Anabaptist truth early 2019; now associated (friend) with the Apostolic Christian Church of America.
Re: Evolution
And here it is ...RZehr wrote:There is an evolution thread.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
-
- Posts: 4574
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
- Location: Holmes County, Ohio
- Affiliation: Gospel Haven
Re: Evolution
This is an interesting interview/discussion about Darwinism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.