Anabaptist perspective of the Creation narrative?

[Soloist]

I am not mocking people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old (while simultaneously rejecting the Genesis cosmology) - I am rather trying to enlighten them! My aim is to move Anabaptist Christians away from the Protestant Fundamentalist battleground and instead to focus on Jesus and His Good News. We should not be alienating potential followers of Jesus who accept the natural observations that the earth is old. Arguing against science is not sowing the seed Jesus refers to in his parables, which is the word of the Kingdom (a "gospel" rejected by most young-earth creationists in any case.)

I don't need your enlightenment. That is the same path that many have followed to leave Christianity in favor of secularism whether or not you agree with the path that others take, that is what happens.

Because we know from other observations of nature that the Universe is older than the genealogies in Genesis indicate. If God wrote the genealogies in Genesis and at the same time created a universe with every physical evidence indicating that it is billions of years old then which "record" am I to believe? If God chose to deceive all of mankind about the age of the universe, then I have been perfectly deceived by Him and cannot deny the record of His perfect creation. It's like I say to my Calvinist friends - "I can't help but reject predestination if I have been predestined to reject it!" I can't help but conclude that the earth is billions of years old and vast in size if that is how God made it appear to be!

Which record am I to believe? seriously? God's of course. Are you dogmatic? or open minded to the possibility of God not being real?
What I've explained would not be deception, you just reject it as not a plausible solution

So you accept that the dry land we call the earth is a non-spherical object with water above and below it with a solid dome over it to separate the waters from the dry land, onto which are set the moon, sun and stars? That is the literal, simple description of the earth from the book of Genesis.

I'll only reference where I answered you before

I also don't reject the cosmology described, I just come to different conclusions about the meaning as do many others. You hold a position of mocking those who would believe in flat earth and I think the description given is not clear enough to make exact statements of round or flat.

I recognize that the earliest portions of the book of Genesis present a model of the creation of the Universe and of cosmology that is the common understanding of mankind in the Eastern Mediterranean at the time of its writing. The point of the creation account in Genesis is not to present a novel "scientific" description of the creation and geometry of the Universe, it's point is to assert that God created the Universe that men observe, that He created Man as a being much like God Himself (in His own image) and that the first humans disobeyed God resulting in our alienation from Him and damage to the cosmos, setting the stage for God's intervention in history to create a people separated to Him.

Thank you for explaining your starting point.

Now for questions, feel free to clarify any of them so you understand the question.

Do you believe in miracles? the global flood?

What miracles in the Old Testament do you believe happened how its described?

Would God have created isotopes partly decayed? or would the isotopes be undecayed?

would the periodic table at creation of our planet still be missing some elements because enough time had not passed?

Did God make an egg? or a chicken?

Did God make rock? or dirt?

Did God make an adult? or a baby?

Did God make a tree? or a seed?

Would the chicken represent a biological age of an egg or an adult chicken?

Would the dirt represent the isotope age of dirt? or of a rock?

Would the adult represent the biological age of a baby? or an adult?

would the tree have rings?

You can condense the response to this set of questions as the intent is obvious for any of this set being the same question.

You refused to answer any explanation of the creation of man and if Adam was the first man from whom all humanity descended.

and God waiting billions of years to create man? or did God not create man and just started the big bang and everything naturally came to be with billions of years?

I think I posted this elsewhere as well, but the intent was to ask if you believe that all humans descended from Adam
The other part of that question is if you believe the genealogy is an close approximation when Adam came into existence or what you believe as to when Adam was created.

Any questions on the questions?

[temporal1]

Can someone please describe to me what an earth, fauna and flora, man, and the universe would look like with no appearance of age?

if i understand your question, i believe this is what life was in The Garden, before the fall; and, a description of heaven. (??)
our understanding is a glimpse, not complete. “enough” until we’re ready for more. (??)

[Ken]

Can someone please describe to me what an earth, fauna and flora, man, and the universe would look like with no appearance of age?

if i understand your question, i believe this is what life was in The Garden, before the fall; and, a description of heaven. (??)
our understanding is a glimpse, not complete. “enough” until we’re ready for more. (??)

an un-aged earth would be among other things:

1. Land that is composed of solid rock with no soil or sand which are both the result of weathering and erosion.



2. Oceans that are pure fresh water with no salt (or other dissolved minerals), which are the result of millions of years of minerals from land being dissolved by streams and rivers that wash dissolved minerals into the ocean bit by bit Here is how the oceans get salty over time.



3. No evidence of past geological changes such as no volcanoes built up over time, no canyons dug out over time, no sediments in oceans and lakes built up over time, etc.

So none of this stuff....

Volcanoes


Canyons


River deltas


etc.etc...

[justme]

was adam born as a baby? or was he created w the appearance of age?
what about eve? was she created w the appearance of age?

[Wayne in Maine]

was adam born as a baby? or was he created w the appearance of age?
what about eve? was she created w the appearance of age?

We really can’t know the answers to those questions, can we? We can speculate about such details, and many people who think such minutiae is important to the Good News of God’s reign among us think these matters are important “proofs” that the Bible, which contains that Good News, is reliable and precisely historically and scientifically accurate.

My faith is in Jesus, not the book we call “the Bible”. I do not try to force the books if the Bible into a mold into which they do not belong.

[JimFoxvog]

I'm agnostic on the young earth / old earth question. Both sides have good points. I don't know which is correct. I'm glad to see both positions being fairly respectful of one another here.

We really can’t know the answers to those questions, can we? We can speculate about such details, and many people who think such minutiae is important to the Good News of God’s reign among us think these matters are important “proofs” that the Bible, which contains that Good News, is reliable and precisely historically and scientifically accurate.

My faith is in Jesus, not the book we call “the Bible”.

This is the important point to me.

[Soloist]

was adam born as a baby? or was he created w the appearance of age?
what about eve? was she created w the appearance of age?

We really can’t know the answers to those questions, can we? We can speculate about such details, and many people who think such minutiae is important to the Good News of God’s reign among us think these matters are important “proofs” that the Bible, which contains that Good News, is reliable and precisely historically and scientifically accurate.

My faith is in Jesus, not the book we call “the Bible”. I do not try to force the books if the Bible into a mold into which they do not belong.

I'm assuming by your lack of response to me and my questions that you are evading giving an answer yet again.

How can you know the answer is your position and then hand wave the "speculation" refusing to actually entertain the questions asked. You still have not answered if you even believe in miracles in the old Testament and which ones. You also have not responded to the specifics of Adam.

The Bible is the very word of God, Jesus is the word of God. How can you dismiss faith in the very words God gave us? That would suggest that you are very much like the Quakers rather then the Anabaptists. I'm assuming you would dispute that, but why refuse to give an answer? is it because you don't believe in the miracles and don't want to be pinned down? Do you believe in evolution? creation of multiple humans rather then a singular line? these things hold doctrinal ramifications and are not just speculative.
Either clearly state you refuse to answer and I'll drop it, or answer them.

[Wayne in Maine]

I'm assuming by your lack of response to me and my questions that you are evading giving an answer yet again.

You assume wrong. I am very busy and don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum specifically responding to your answering badgering me.

[Wayne in Maine]

Now for questions, feel free to clarify any of them so you understand the question.

Do you believe in miracles? the global flood?

I believe in miracles. There is no physical evidence of a global flood so while I draw meaning from the account in Genesis, I accept that the account by the author of Genesis is not historically or scientifically precise.

What miracles in the Old Testament do you believe happened how its described?

I can't parse the entire Old Testament to generate a list. Sorry.

Would God have created isotopes partly decayed? or would the isotopes be undecayed?

God can do whatever he chooses. This question of course comes from your belief that God created the universe to look billions of years old (and apparently hid all traces of a global flood) - I'm not satisfied with your answer to the question - why would God deceive humanity that way?

would the periodic table at creation of our planet still be missing some elements because enough time had not passed?

See answer to the previous question.

Did God make an egg? or a chicken?

Did God make rock? or dirt?

Did God make an adult? or a baby?

Did God make a tree? or a seed?

Would the chicken represent a biological age of an egg or an adult chicken?

Would the dirt represent the isotope age of dirt? or of a rock?

Would the adult represent the biological age of a baby? or an adult?

would the tree have rings?

Those are questions you have to answer as they relate to theory that God created the universe 6000 or so years ago in 144 hours and made it to look billions of years old. I believe what has been observed in nature - that the universe was created by God several billions of years ago with the elements of the universe following the physical laws God created (which, as sophisticated as human civilization is, we still lack the intellectual tools to fully comprehend) to coalesce into stars, planets and other objects, one of which was the earth, situated in a unique environment in the universe where God could engineer life to develop over time according to his design.

You refused to answer any explanation of the creation of man and if Adam was the first man from whom all humanity descended.

There was certainly a "first man", from whom all humans descended, and the author of Genesis identifies him as Adam and describes how humanity fell into disobedience and alienation from God.

and God waiting billions of years to create man? or did God not create man and just started the big bang and everything naturally came to be with billions of years?

Marvelous isn't it - the scale of time-space is awesome, and to think God is greater than all of it.

The other part of that question is if you believe the genealogy is an close approximation when Adam came into existence or what you believe as to when Adam was created.

Which Genesis genealogy, the Masoretic, the Septuagint or the Samaritan Pentateuch? The genealogies of the books of the bible are not consistent, even Matthew and Luke differ in their Gospels. I don't think they are useful for establishing an age of the universe (or a precise date and time of creation, as Bishop Usher did) but that is not their purpose.

[Wayne in Maine]

The Bible is the very word of God, Jesus is the word of God. How can you dismiss faith in the very words God gave us? That would suggest that you are very much like the Quakers rather then the Anabaptists. I'm assuming you would dispute that, but why refuse to give an answer? is it because you don't believe in the miracles and don't want to be pinned down? Do you believe in evolution? creation of multiple humans rather then a singular line? these things hold doctrinal ramifications and are not just speculative.
Either clearly state you refuse to answer and I'll drop it, or answer them.

I do not believe that the bible is the same as "God incarnate". As a matter of faith, perhaps even as the foundation of faith, you and many Fundamentalist Protestants chose to believe that "the Bible" (in whichever edition you believe) is co-equal to Jesus, whom the witnesses to His life and teaching clearly identify as God made flesh - the Word of God. There is no such witness to the 66 books of the Protestant bible. These books were penned by fallible men under the inspiration of God - they contain the very words of God in many instances given through the prophets and recorded by the Apostles, but they were clearly penned by men, not by God. Christians are not "people of the book" they are people separated by God who are part of His Kingdom, the Good News of which and the very character of which was established by His Son, Jesus. We waste our time and miss the opportunity to preach the Good News of the Kingdom by trying to rationalize the inconsistencies of the bible in order to justify our faith in this book as the very Word of God. The Word of God transcends the bible, it must live in you, it is written on the heart, not on paper.

God did not choose (as Muslims assert Allah did) to write a perfectly consistent historically and scientifically accurate book and deliver it miraculously to modern men. The very texts of the bible do not assert that God authored a book called the bible consisting of 66 books. Jesus never asserted that, rather he promised to give the Holy Spirit to those who believe in Him (not in a book) which is to be our guide to all truth.

Now you may drop it and perhaps accept that one does not have to make excuses for the obvious discrepancies between the the book of Genesis and what one can observe in nature in order to believe in Jesus commit oneself to following Him and propagating the Good News he preached.