MennoNet.com

Josh wrote:

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.

The age of the universe (ie the creation of time itself) has nothing to do with how God created life and man.

Answers in Genesis likes to link the two. I think we would do well to unlink them.

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?

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?

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?

Wayne in Maine wrote:

lesterb wrote:

None of the statements in Genesis have to be understood as requiring a flat earth, or non-Copernican solar system.

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).

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.

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.

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.

God knows, and that's fine.

Indeed.

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.

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.

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?

RZehr wrote:I marked #3. But I don't believe in cross specie evolution, I only believe in micro evolution.

RZehr wrote:There is an evolution thread.