I wouldn't have expected any flat earthers either. They apparently exist, but are rare birds to hear.Hats Off wrote:I am not surprised at all. I thought most Christians believed the Genesis account and thought flat earth was something from centuries ago.Wayne in Maine wrote: BTW. I'm surprised that while there are many young earthers on this forum there are no flat earthers here.
Evolution
Re: Evolution
0 x
- Wayne in Maine
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
- Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
- Affiliation: Yielded
Re: Evolution
If we as Christians can accommodate ourselves to a Copernican solar system with the moon revolving about the earth and the earth and other planets revolving around the sun (rather than accepting the description of the cosmos given in Genesis) then we should be able to accommodate ourselves to a universe that is 13.772 billion (+/- 59 million) years old.RZehr wrote:I wouldn't have expected any flat earthers either. They apparently exist, but are rare birds to hear.Hats Off wrote:I am not surprised at all. I thought most Christians believed the Genesis account and thought flat earth was something from centuries ago.Wayne in Maine wrote: BTW. I'm surprised that while there are many young earthers on this forum there are no flat earthers here.
0 x
Re: Evolution
My Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth, that he separated the waters from the dry land and that he also created sun, moon and stars. It says he created birds and fish and animals and plants and finally humans. All this I can see and I believe it was so. But I don't understand why that means that I can't also believe 6 literal days from the account as it is given. And I fail to see why this should not be considered a valid foundation for what the rest of the bible teaches.
How is the Copernican theory different from the account in Genesis?
How is the Copernican theory different from the account in Genesis?
0 x
- JimFoxvog
- Posts: 2895
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:56 pm
- Location: Northern Illinois
- Affiliation: MCUSA
Re: Evolution
Saying "no evidence" is pretty strong. Answers in Genesis, which does have scientists on its staff, writes:Wayne in Maine wrote:One important point to remember here. Though you may not believe it, there is no evidence in anything that that can be counted or measured that indicates that the universe is as young as 6000 years. All measurable evidence indicates that the earth is very, very old and that the universe is older still - billions of years.
The full article, with links to support what I replaced with [ .... ], is at https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-f ... ung-earth/Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists. The following series of articles presents what Answers in Genesis researchers picked as the ten best scientific evidences that contradict billions of years and confirm a relatively young earth and universe.
....
#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor
....
#2 Bent Rock Layers
....
#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
....
#4 Faint Sun Paradox
....
#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field
....
#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks
....
#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
....
#8 Short-Lived Comets
....
#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea
....
#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria
....
Now each of these may have good explantions that fit in the billion-year time scale, but I don't think one can accurately say "no evidence".
0 x
-
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
- Location: Alberta
- Affiliation: Western Fellowship
- Contact:
Re: Evolution
Wayne you are making a lot misguided assumptions in this thread. I have only ever met one person who believed in a flat earth. I don't recall meeting anyone who didn't believe in the Copernican solar system, and I don't know of any verses in the Bible that would need to be understood that way.Wayne in Maine wrote:If we as Christians can accommodate ourselves to a Copernican solar system with the moon revolving about the earth and the earth and other planets revolving around the sun (rather than accepting the description of the cosmos given in Genesis) then we should be able to accommodate ourselves to a universe that is 13.772 billion (+/- 59 million) years old.RZehr wrote:I wouldn't have expected any flat earthers either. They apparently exist, but are rare birds to hear.Hats Off wrote: I am not surprised at all. I thought most Christians believed the Genesis account and thought flat earth was something from centuries ago.
0 x
-
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
- Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship
Re: Evolution
I think that when the Bible talks about the cosmos and/or cosmic movement, we should recognize that it is often dealing with a perspective of perception. We do the same thing, and innocently as well, when we talk about sunrise and sunset or moonrise and moonset, or the stars moving across the night sky. And we are much more enlightened then the writers of Scripture were.....maybe.Wayne in Maine wrote:If we as Christians can accommodate ourselves to a Copernican solar system with the moon revolving about the earth and the earth and other planets revolving around the sun (rather than accepting the description of the cosmos given in Genesis) then we should be able to accommodate ourselves to a universe that is 13.772 billion (+/- 59 million) years old.RZehr wrote:I wouldn't have expected any flat earthers either. They apparently exist, but are rare birds to hear.Hats Off wrote: I am not surprised at all. I thought most Christians believed the Genesis account and thought flat earth was something from centuries ago.
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
- Wayne in Maine
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
- Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
- Affiliation: Yielded
Re: Evolution
You are getting close to the mark. Reading Genesis I would never conclude that the earth is a sphere (okay, an oblate spheroid) revolving in space, rotating along with the planets around the sun. In fact, I would conclude that there is a solid surface separating the waters above the earth from the waters below keeping the dry earth below if from being inundated (as it was when the floodgates in the sky were opened). This is precisely how pre-scientific people of almost all cultures and religions throughout most of history described the cosmos.silentreader wrote:I think that when the Bible talks about the cosmos and/or cosmic movement, we should recognize that it is often dealing with a perspective of perception. We do the same thing, and innocently as well, when we talk about sunrise and sunset or moonrise and moonset, or the stars moving across the night sky. And we are much more enlightened then the writers of Scripture were.....maybe.Wayne in Maine wrote:If we as Christians can accommodate ourselves to a Copernican solar system with the moon revolving about the earth and the earth and other planets revolving around the sun (rather than accepting the description of the cosmos given in Genesis) then we should be able to accommodate ourselves to a universe that is 13.772 billion (+/- 59 million) years old.RZehr wrote: I wouldn't have expected any flat earthers either. They apparently exist, but are rare birds to hear.
The only reason we believe in a Copernican solar system is because we have made irrefutable observations of the structure of the cosmos and found, among other things, that there is not solid dome holding back water, that there is no "above" or "below" the earth (there is an inside and an outside). And we have accommodated our understanding of the book of Genesis accordingly.
So perhaps, for the sake of God's kingdom and the Good News of Jesus, we can be less dogmatic about the time scale of Genesis as well.
0 x
-
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
- Location: Alberta
- Affiliation: Western Fellowship
- Contact:
Re: Evolution
There is a difference though. None of the statements in Genesis have to be understood as requiring a flat earth, or non-Copernican solar system. 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.Wayne in Maine wrote:You are getting close to the mark. Reading Genesis I would never conclude that the earth is a sphere (okay, an oblate spheroid) revolving in space, rotating along with the planets around the sun. In fact, I would conclude that there is a solid surface separating the waters above the earth from the waters below keeping the dry earth below if from being inundated (as it was when the floodgates in the sky were opened). This is precisely how pre-scientific people of almost all cultures and religions throughout most of history described the cosmos.silentreader wrote:I think that when the Bible talks about the cosmos and/or cosmic movement, we should recognize that it is often dealing with a perspective of perception. We do the same thing, and innocently as well, when we talk about sunrise and sunset or moonrise and moonset, or the stars moving across the night sky. And we are much more enlightened then the writers of Scripture were.....maybe.Wayne in Maine wrote:
If we as Christians can accommodate ourselves to a Copernican solar system with the moon revolving about the earth and the earth and other planets revolving around the sun (rather than accepting the description of the cosmos given in Genesis) then we should be able to accommodate ourselves to a universe that is 13.772 billion (+/- 59 million) years old.
The only reason we believe in a Copernican solar system is because we have made irrefutable observations of the structure of the cosmos and found, among other things, that there is not solid dome holding back water, that there is no "above" or "below" the earth (there is an inside and an outside). And we have accommodated our understanding of the book of Genesis accordingly.
So perhaps, for the sake of God's kingdom and the Good News of Jesus, we can be less dogmatic about the time scale of Genesis as well.
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.
0 x
- Josh
- Posts: 24119
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
- Location: 1000' ASL
- Affiliation: The church of God
Re: Evolution
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.
0 x
- Wayne in Maine
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
- Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
- Affiliation: Yielded
Re: Evolution
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