Just curious.

I consider the Bible to be God's inspired word, as it claims, so everything else needs to be viewed through this eyewitness account.

My reasons...
Days of creation were just that, days. The language is clear, written in narrative style Hebrew. The Hebrew for day is actually identical to ours (not in spelling), having the same meanings as ours depending on context.

The Bible's geneologies explicitely give parent/child relationships all of the way down, so allows no "gap".

Considering this way, the earth is at most 10,000 years old. There are plenty of natural processes that give evidence of a young earth, but these two reasons are the most important to me.

I'll have to continue later...

------------------
So if I stand let me stand on the promise that you will pull me through, and if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me to you. And if I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these songs, and if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.
(Rich Mullins)

All the arguements I've heard for an old earth through creation don't hold water... IMHO the idea is from someone trying to combine the bible with the world's theories that try to unexplain God. They aren't compatible.

------------------
I'm out of my mind... and into the mind of Christ -G.S. Megaphone

6000 years seems too short...
and the Billions of billions of trillions of years sounds just stooooooopid.

------------------

The only real reason to re-define "day" is to try to force the "billions of years" into the Bible. I agree that the "billions of years" view sounds pretty far-fetched ("stooooooopid" ). I see no reason to accept that theory, IMHO I have every right to pursue my own theories.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Love in Christ
Gift

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

------------------

If you read Genesis 1 without Genesis 2, you'd get a very different impression. But I think it would be harder to fit the events of Genesis 2 with the sequence of Genesis 1 than vice versa. However you interpret it, as long as you don't believe in evolution, then you don't need an earth much older than people. It wouldn't hurt, but wouldn't be necessary. Genesis 2 says man was created (v. 7) before birds and beasts (v. 19), and seemingly also plants (v. 8) although it doesn't explicitly rule out any plants being earlier. But the earth itself had to be there first for man to be created from dust. (And considering what dust is and how it is formed--we might or might not derive something from that.) So there's no way of knowing exactly how long the earth could have been there before being misted and Adam created, unless we get it from the word "day."

Of course, that's all textual evidence. As for physical evidence of a younger earth (and that usually includes younger plants, animals, etc.) I've seen some very interesting articles--theories and potential evidence for dinosaurs and humans together, fossil positioning relating to catastrophe rather than long periods of natural dying, etc. But I would have to know a lot more in a lot more areas to be able to verify such things!

How about this--do you believe in a young galaxy? A young universe? God seems to be a creative person. We know he is eternal--and that would mean going in both directions, backwards as well as forwards, right? So what all did he make before us? (Or is that wrongly applying the concept of linear time?)

One question I like to consider is about aliens. If we're not the only creation, did he create other people in His image? If so, they would also need a relationship with Jesus, we would probably assume.... So how would events unfold in such a situation? If I have time to write some Christian sci-fi one of these days, I would like to write a story or book that covers possibilities like that.

Curry

quote:

---

How about this--do you believe in a young galaxy? A young universe?

---

Good question . I think that Dr Russell Humphreys may have a good explanation, so I'm actually leaning towards old galaxy/universe (but not quite as old as Evolutionists claim).

quote:

---

that would mean going in both directions, backwards as well as forwards, right? So what all did he make before us? (Or is that wrongly applying the concept of linear time?)

---

As Q said to Picard once: "Don't be so linear, Jean-Luc" (I've always wanted to use that phrase ) - I believe God created time as well as space. There is no "before" because there was no time "before".

I personally don't believe in aliens.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

As I've also said before the Ten Commandments also draw a parallel with the work-week and creation.

Another point on stretching any of the time of creation, Jesus said that mankind was created male and female "in the begining", regarding divorce (something monkeys don't do). Day six would easily be understood as "the begining", but if you even begin to stretch this to the ages people attempt it becomes rediculous. Even 16 million years is hardly "the begining" compared to the billions they assign to the earth and creation, even forgetting the ape-men or souless humans they want to place before Adam.

Humphreys theory seems very possible, though as many creationists (him included) point out the Big Bang and other theories contradict the evidence, so we hardly have to defend one as being undeniably true. God did it.

My answer on aliens would be no. The earth, and stars and planets were made for humans and God's own pleasure, as the Bible states. It also says that He has set the boundaries for man's habitation to the earth. Aliens just don't seem to fit the picture (especially one's with human level intelligence). If you are interested on a Christian sci-fi idea though, I've got one you could try, just let me know.

------------------
So if I stand let me stand on the promise that you will pull me through, and if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me to you. And if I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these songs, and if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.
(Rich Mullins)

Also, ArchAngel, what is 6,000 to 10,000 years too short for?

------------------
So if I stand let me stand on the promise that you will pull me through, and if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me to you. And if I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these songs, and if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.
(Rich Mullins)

I'm not saying it's not possible... God could have created the universe yesterday, programming everything, including our memory.
for example, some of the stars we see now will take 200 million years for the light to reach us. God could of created the universe 6000 years ago and created the light on it's way already.
God created all physical laws and rules, science,... They are not restrictions on Him, but tools He can use.
So, I wonder how He did it.

but yeah... many people this too linear... perceiving God as outside of time helps me realize His ominscience and Omnipotence while allowing us freewill.

Aliens.. oooh.. I don't know. probably non-sentient life. I could almost bet on it. Sentient life, I dunno. Maybe a species with intelligence, they can build, achieve spaceflight, etc. but no soul. I don't really know. I'm pretty open minded on it. the UFO stories though... pffff. I give it no credibility.

Proving something doesn't exist is a lot harder than proving something exists. to prove something exists, find it in only one circumstance; to prove something doesn't exist, you have to prove it doesn't exist in all circumstances. then again, if the Bible says it doesn't exist...

Besides, can I see the verse where it says man is stuck on Earth. I always seen us colonizing other planets, so.. yeah. I'd want to know it.

------------------

The verses I'd refer to on man's habitation are Psalm 115:16: "The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's: but the earth hath He given to the children of men." and Acts 17:24,26 "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth...hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of habitation." I'm sorry but this seems to tell me we won't be colonizing any other planets anytime soon. If you've seen the failures of Biosphere II then you can see how short we fall in trying to duplicate the earth's conditions in a closed environment anyway. This'd be required to do anything more than vacation on other planets, but the balance the earth has hasn't been close to approximated in these artificial habitats.

As the president of our creation group suggested though, that may be something that happens in the new, restored creation.

------------------
So if I stand let me stand on the promise that you will pull me through, and if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me to you. And if I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these songs, and if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.
(Rich Mullins)

Scientists may claim an old earth, but there are scientists(a minority) who have evidence of a young earth as well. (AiG, for example) So there really is no need for me to sacrifice ANY of my belief in the Bible on the altar of skeptics. The infallible word of God should always trump the science of fallible humans.

------------------
My Web Comic: Code Rage

On Those verses that say we stay on earth

------------------

TheManFromGanymede, total agreement, long ages are always based on other preconceptions, our preconceptions should come from the Word, because His precepts are true.

------------------
So if I stand let me stand on the promise that you will pull me through, and if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me to you. And if I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these songs, and if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.
(Rich Mullins)

I actually haven't had the time to look through the site, and if any of you have, then it is worth my time? The only thing I've read from there is his response to Humphreys and that didn't leave me a good impression of the organization.

is scientifically the sun the center of the universe? I kinda seriously doubt that. yeah, all the stars are spreading away from eachother, but... hmmm... I'd probably have to check the data on it.... I seen some stuff about redshift and stuff. The universe is expanding... blah blah blah.. but the sun being the center? I never heard that.and besides... is there a center?

------------------

Most stars are redshifted - here are interpretations of redshifts that I'm aware of:
-either the universe is expanding/expanded (the most common explanation),
-the earth is near the center of an exploding universe,
-or we've got the wrong idea about what causes redshifts.

I've heard theories about all three interpretations.

I should get Humphereys' book sometime.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited July 19, 2003).]

They're old-earth creationists (they believe that God created first life, but used (m/b)illions of years to shape things).

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Hugh Ross teaches a LOT of plain stupid ideas, heresy in the full meaning of the word, plain and simple. And he and his org. have deceptive, in a recent article on his ideas he's reported as supporting the account of the flood, when what he really believes in is a localized flood (making God both a lier, and an idiot for not having Noah just move). If you ever see a diagram of his attempt at fitting Genesis into his ideas you'll get the picture. By now he's rejected any of the genesis account as relevent. I've heard from his followers as well as a man who actually talked to him in person. Just a word of caution for anyone...

------------------
So if I stand let me stand on the promise that you will pull me through, and if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me to you. And if I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these songs, and if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.
(Rich Mullins)

I'm glad my reasons to believe are't built on the shifting sands his are...

------------------
So if I stand let me stand on the promise that you will pull me through, and if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me to you. And if I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these songs, and if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.
(Rich Mullins)

which reminds me of the SuperString Theory. pretty new, still a work in progress. Basically all matter consists of superstrings, 2 dimensional strings vibrating in a certain way to create, say, an Quarks, electrons, and neutrinos. So.. hmmm, how can you convey information(and stuff) by vibrations...speaking... God spoke... It's interesting. from what I saw I like the theory. Anyone think of it? (okay, it's off the New-Old-Earth topic.. but I have to continue my long-standing tradition of topic diversion)

------------------

The earth is going to be distroied by God in the end. Then a new one will be made. Who really cares how old this tid-bit of dirt is

~Angel~

------------------

Anyways you guys have fun
~Angel~

But...not being able to go very far out or to actually meet aliens physically doesn't necessarily mean there are none! When I say aliens, I don't mean that the scenario has to match Star Trek, X Files, or UFO encounters. (In fact, I believe many of these "encounter" media are harmful in preoccupying people with imaginary threats and opportunities while neglecting real threats and opportunities!)

I am open to there being aliens or not, but if there are, I believe there would be sentient ones, and those would be people similar to us, after God's image. The flora and fauna might be very different!

Basically, I see God as extremely creative. If He just made us and that's it, it's kind of like if I just made one (really good) software program in my life. I also think that the creation God enjoys most is people. Therefore, although He must enjoy all the neat and amazing things about the lifeless parts of the universe, I suspect that He might also might enjoy having more life in it.

In other words, this is what I imagine about God based on what I know about Him, just as you might imagine what a friend will do based on what he's like. God is a Creator, and so it seems reasonable to assume that He does more creating, past, present, and/or future. That's speculation...but so is assuming that He doesn't!

Yes, sounds interesting, what's you sci-fi idea? You can post or PM according to your preference.

Best wishes,

Curry

quote:

---

christian(quoting Angel):
who cares ?

---

depends where you come from. A scientist would not say that, for science atleast. "who cares?" didn't get many people very far. what if Newton said who cares about gravity?
I'm not trying to bash what you are saying... just saying.. yeah. you get what I'm saying. You don't need to care about this, but hopefully somebody does.

------------------

No, it's not a salvation issue, but it does raise questions about what "very good" means for God, as well other things - why would God word it in a way that only modern man can understand? Did other humans exist at the time of Adam & Eve? Would they be condemned along with Adam & Eve? Why should we place an unproven theory above a plain reading of God's word?

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Humans plainly existed long before Adam and Eve, that's why the whole question of how old the earth is, is moot. Young earth is based on a particular way of reading a specific Hebrew word, and the wrong assumption that Adam and Eve where made on the 6th day.

Would they be condemned along with Adam & Eve?

Worse, they never had communion with God to start with.

Why should we place an unproven theory above a plain reading of God's word?

Are you reading God's Word plainly, or are you reading an imperfect translation of it ? Even your English Bible does not say that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, that's just what your Sunday School taught you. I've heard all the terrible pseudo science about all races coming from Noah's family, so let's just not go there again, OK ? :-)

quote:

---

Humans plainly existed long before Adam and Eve

---

This is plain where?

quote:

---

Even your English Bible does not say that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman

---

There's also no indication that other humans existed at the time of Adam and Eve. You're just assuming it.

quote:

---

I've heard all the terrible pseudo science about all races coming from Noah's family, so let's just not go there again, OK ? :-)

---

I've heard all the terrible pseudo science about the earth being billions of years old, so let's just not go there again, OK ?

Well jeez, I've never heard of genetics being called a "pseudo science" before. This is new to me. You never really proved that this was "pseudo" anything.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

To put it bluntly, 97% of the available dating methods don't give the vast ages claimed by evolutionists. You are force-fed the last 3%, without being told what the assumptions are. You are free to believe that, but don't go blasting everyone else when you obviously aren't considering this with any real interest. You could start with John Morris's "The Young Earth" which goes through a number of the issues. You'd be free to blast it after that:-)

Yeah it is based on a certain way of reading the Bible, it's called exegesis, reading out of the text what the author intends. I don't know where you hail from but where I do we have morning and evening once a day. Translation? Well there's always the original Hebrew if the viewer isn't satisfied with the clear English, but of course that gets nowhere because the Hebrew is equally specific. Once again you are free to disbelieve this, but don't bash people on this when they accept what even the majority of Hebrew Scholars conclude is the language of Genesis, regardless of their beliefs on what it means.

Uh, Adam was the first man. "The first man Adam became a living spirit"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (I Corinthians 15:45, among others, and it's not even sunday:-) Romans 5 retells how this first man (as well as his sinful offspring) caused the curse, required tha Last Adam Jesus to redeem us. Acts 17:26 says that God made all of the nations from one man. Pseuedo science traces man to Noah? Me thinketh not. My Bible traces me back. All life except for the animals and Noah's family were destroyed by the Flood. Not just Genesis, but Hebrews and II Corinthians tell me that.

I sincerely hope you don't apply the same standards when reading the Gospel, because I've had discussions with people who do.

Evolution and long age compromises with their necessity of death before Adam undermine the Gospel message, and create a stumbling block to non-Christians. Going from the right foundation is just as important as the message. Even so, Jesus is the rock that makes men stumble. Every person who comes will be offended. God doesn't you bait-and-switch tactics.

Anyway, let the little Children come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven is what he said. Become as a child in faith. God chooses the foolish things of this world to shame the wise, the weak to shame the strong. Be a fool for Christ.

------------------
So if I stand let me stand on the promise that you will pull me through, and if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me to you. And if I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these songs, and if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.
(Rich Mullins)

quote:

---

Originally posted by christian:
Humans plainly existed long before Adam and Eve
Would they be condemned along with Adam & Eve?

---

oh really? if it be so plain, show me the evidence, for I have seen none. (dooode, that sounds like it came from a old crusty book)

quote:

---

Are you reading God's Word plainly, or are you reading an imperfect translation of it ?

---

It has been proven that the current translations are very close to the orignal text.
and that argument does not support you're claim... it proves nothing.

first of all, the bible does imply that it "man" is singular.

now, while researching, I found an interesting fact. "Man" in hebrew is prounced Adam. cool, huh?

and for your information, many scientists believe that humans descended from two humans. of course, they believe that those two humans lived at to seperate times, but, the genetics support ancestry from 2 people.

------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by christian:
Did other humans exist at the time of Adam & Eve?

Humans plainly existed long before Adam and Eve, that's why the whole question of how old the earth is, is moot. Young earth is based on a particular way of reading a specific Hebrew word, and the wrong assumption that Adam and Eve where made on the 6th day.

Would they be condemned along with Adam & Eve?

Worse, they never had communion with God to start with.

Why should we place an unproven theory above a plain reading of God's word?

Are you reading God's Word plainly, or are you reading an imperfect translation of it ? Even your English Bible does not say that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, that's just what your Sunday School taught you. I've heard all the terrible pseudo science about all races coming from Noah's family, so let's just not go there again, OK ? :-)

---

Hello all,

I'm new to the forum. In fact, I signed up early this morning. However, I find some flaws in this person's thinking. First off is the assumption that the Bible in modern english transpations don't name Adam and Eve as the First Humans. Actually it does. In Genesis 2:5, it says that there was no Man to care for the garden. So, in Genesis 2:7, God created Man. Now, if man already existed, why create another? It's plain that Adam was the first man.

Second, the young earth theory is based upon more than just whimsical interpretation of an ancient collection of Books. There is a scientific basis. Partly involving the studies of Iron core suns. Due to the high concentration of Iron in the first four planets and the asteroid belt, it is believed that our sun has a core of molten Iron. Such a core is estimated to only be able to stay in existance for about 20,000 years. Beyond that, and the Iron begins to cool, and as such, cause the Sun to go supernova. Also, Carbon14 dating isn't as reliable as some would like you to believe. I've read of hundreds of accounts where they used Carbon dating on objects, and minerals in which they knew the exact age. Most of the time, they were off by several hundred thousand years.

Third, the story of Noah's ark is found in more places other than the Bible. Nearly every ancient culture has legends about a man who builds a huge boat, gathers all kinds of animals in it, and uses it to survive a flood. Also, Nearly all of the stories tell the same sequence of events. Coincidence? I think not. On top of that, it is a scientific fact that there is a level of sediment buried at the same basic depth all around the globe. In fact, many of the dinosaur fossils originate from that layer. It has been calculated that the Ark itself had more space in it than over 500 freight train cars. Which is estimated to be large enough to hold what the Bible describes, in addition to the food needed to feed the animals. So, the story of Noah's Ark is more fact than fiction.

On a personal note, I study from the Hebrew and Greek text on a regular basis. As a result, I can assure you that many modern translations are very highly accurate. In fact, the New American Standard Bible translation is the most accurate translation to date.

Jesusman

------------------
Jesus Loves You!

[This message has been edited by Jesusman (edited July 21, 2003).]

Furthermore, 1 Cor does indeed refer to Adam as the first man, and Jesus as the last. Was Jesus the last man ? Adam was the first man who had contact with God, Jesus was the Son of God, the last in the line to complete the path Adam started, of man being able to have communion with His creator.

Interstingly, 6,000 years ago is about when man started to show any signs of being civilised, for example in farming and building static communities.

I'm sorry I brought this up, actually. If this discussion goes on to talk about what really matters ( salvation by the power of God, and not by the lies of men, and fanciful inventions such as sinners prayers and giving ones heart to Jesus ), I suspect that no-one will look for a second at what the Bible actually says, because when I present it, I'll be the guy who rejected one of the sacred tenets of the Bible belt, that carbon dating is flawed, dinosaurs lived with humans ( or maybe were put there to tempt people to reject God, I've heard that one ), and died because there was no room on the ark, and so on. For the record, I reject evolution 100%. I simply prefer to believe what the Bible says, not what Sunday School told me. They didn't know about salvation, either, so why believe the rest without checking it out first ?

Actually, Genesis 1 just says that God created man. It doesn't say that he created more than one. It says that he created male and female. That's what Genesis 2 describes as well. God creating man: male and female.

Second, the NASB isn't accurate just because I believe it to be. It is hailed as the most literally accurate translation to date by most of the christian theologians of today's time. I myself have used it for over 5 years and have yet to find a mistranlation anywhere.

Also, the bible doesn't claim that the world is 6,000 years old. That's the estimation of scientists and historians using geneologies. There are places within the geneology lists that there are gaps. This is referred to as Open Geneology. Basically, this is the belief that the geneologies present the more important, or more visible family members of history rather than every single person. Also, if you follow geneologies strictly, you find inaccuracies in the timeline. However, if you insert gaps in carefully examined locations, then the timeline makes sense, especially when placed next to secular history. For example, In the later chapters of Genesis, Levi has a son called Korath. Korath is born before Jacob goes to egypt. Since Moses was 80 at the start of the Exodus, he must've been born some 350 years after Korath. Yet, 1 Chronicles lists korath as a grandfather, that is of course if you follow Geneologies strictly. On top of that, Korath had four sons. Each son became the start of a nation. In numbers 3, these four nations go to war with Israel. They are recorded to having a total of 8600 male members. Korath's 4 sons had to have over 2750 sons each in order for this to make sense. This is an impossiblity. The only way this makes sense is that 1 Chronicles only lists the most visible members of the line, rather than every single member. Apply the open Geneology view to the Bible, and the timeline falls right into place with science.

Jesusman

------------------
Jesus Loves You!

quote:

---

No soul is ever saved by believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

---

No soul here disagrees with this statement! Quit trying make strawmen .

Where in the world did you get "men" from in Genesis 1?

quote:

---

But when we get into fanciful stories about super dna that stops inbreeding

---

I've never had to make up such stories, I've only had to apply what I know about genetics.

quote:

---

I simply prefer to believe what the Bible says, not what Sunday School told me.

---

So do I. Unfortunately, I'm failing to figure out where you're getting your information about "what the Bible says" - I'm not finding that information in my Bible or the Hebrew!

quote:

---

I'll be the guy who rejected one of the sacred tenets of the Bible belt . . .

---

Nice emotional appeal. No, we're not trying to tear you down personally; we're trying to figure out where you're getting your information from.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

No soul is ever saved by believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No soul here disagrees with this statement! Quit trying make strawmen .

No straw men, I was trying to state the obvious, not suggesting anyone felt otherwise.

Where in the world did you get "men" from in Genesis 1?

Of more importance is the difference between creating and forming something from something that exists. But as I said, I don't want to argue the point.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But when we get into fanciful stories about super dna that stops inbreeding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've never had to make up such stories, I've only had to apply what I know about genetics.

So you're a genetecist ?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I simply prefer to believe what the Bible says, not what Sunday School told me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So do I. Unfortunately, I'm failing to figure out where you're getting your information about "what the Bible says" - I'm not finding that information in my Bible or the Hebrew!

The absolute worst case scenario for me is that the link between Gen 1 and 2 is implied and nothing specific refutes it. There is no way that it can be claimed that Gen 2 is definately a retelling of part of Gen 1. But, I repeat, I don't want to argue about it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll be the guy who rejected one of the sacred tenets of the Bible belt . . .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice emotional appeal. No, we're not trying to tear you down personally; we're trying to figure out where you're getting your information from.

Reading the Bible. But if we're going to discuss something, how about we choose something that matters ?

quote:

---

So you're a genetecist ?

---

No. Nothing higher than college biology.

quote:

---

There is no way that it can be claimed that Gen 2 is definately a retelling of part of Gen 1. But, I repeat, I don't want to argue about it.

---

You don't have to. I agree that they're seperate accounts. I disagree this neccessitates going from "man" to "men", though.

quote:

---

But if we're going to discuss something, how about we choose something that matters ?

---

If I remember right, I think we agree on salvation issues. Not much to discuss.

------------------
There are only 10 types of people - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

so, We mostly agree on the fundementals, that's why we're here. I mean, if you don't want to talk about this, you don't need to, but to some people science is important. yeah.

So, I'd agree with my homies, CobraA1 and JesusMan here...

JesusMan... Iron core, huh? 20,000 years to supernova... why haven't I heard about this theory. cool. but, if so, we're gonna have to start looking into interstellar colonization. eh, Crptc_Programmer? lol.

------------------

In Matthew Jesus refers to both the first and second chapter of Genesis at the same time, it didn't confuse Him. Man was always created in God's image, having a soul. In fact it seems to me that you are the one taking this too literally in a fashion. When it says in God's image, does that mean the physical form as you seem to think? God is spirit, He can take on physical form, but His nature is spirit, outside of His created world. So to be created in God's image is not referring to physical qualities, but the spiritual, and intellectual abilities of man. The Bible couldn't be clearer that this was the way man was created from the begining, when he was fashioned from dirt, on day six.

My answer on I Corinthians, yes, Jesus was the last Adam. Your argument would seem to be based on the idea that the verse means nothing. By your view it can't. But if you accept that it is referring to a literal first man, then you can see the analogy that the verse is making. Just as Adam became the first living soul, so Jesus became a life-giving being. As Adam was the firstborn of humaninty, Jesus became the firstborn from the dead. You seem to miss the point of I Corinthians anyway, if the first man was made a living soul, you have no basis for pre-Adamite soulless man, regardless of whether you call that man Adam or not.

To explain my position a little further on the original topic...
I see a young earth as more consistent with the Biblical account of history. I see the timespan of creation as non-negotiable, given clearly and upheld through the rest of the Bible. In fact the Jews of Jesus' day had a hard time with why God took so long to create everything (which of course was simply a pattern for man, just as the rest of Genesis forms the basis for all of Christianity, from death to atonement). However I don't have a problem with people believing in an old earth (beyond the time of creation) so much as the baggage that is shoe-horned into the account that makes the time necessary. Souless Pre-Adamites, ape-men, and carnivory, disease, and death before the fall are just not biblical.

Now that I've made myself popular, later:-)....

------------------
So if I stand let me stand on the promise that you will pull me through, and if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me to you. And if I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these songs, and if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.
(Rich Mullins)

Who accused me of straw men ? This is as silly as your claim that I think 1 Cor means nothing. Please don't tell me what I think, unless it has some remote resemblance to what I said.

------------------

To make it clearer, if you agree with me on what being created in God's image means, then you can't support a soulless man based on a distinction between chapter one and two of Genesis. Chapter one states that this is the way man was created on day six. If anything you have a bodyless man.

Okay, you tell me then, what does the analogy of Jesus as the last Adam give you?

To continue on I Corinthians 15:45, you have to read the thing in context anyway. Let Scripture interpret Scripture. Read it in the light of Romans 5, written by inspiration by the same author. One man (and successively his offspring) caused condemnation by sin. Adam was a pattern for the one to come (Jesus), because he did not break a command. Paul is talking about Adam as a real, literal, historical, singular man. The last real, literal, historical Adam, Jesus, gave the gift of eternal life with God, taking the condemnation upon himself brought on by the real, literal, singular man and his offspring.

Yet this doesn't have anything to do with salvation? Well in the aspect of "I grab on to Jesus' cloak", no. Does it in my understanding of that salvation? Yeah...

------------------
So if I stand let me stand on the promise that you will pull me through, and if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me to you. And if I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these songs, and if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.
(Rich Mullins)

Obviously have far too much time on there hands!

Isaac newton discovering gravity is relevant, this topic is not imo.

--D-SIPL

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that suggests you tried

Graceworks Interactive

yeah, well, you see my point on it.
you do know that are existence isn't about saving people. not trying to make witness appear less important, but.. some people overemphasis it and make it their god. not accusing you D-SPL, just wanted to get that out.

------------------

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

So ArchAngel if we are not on earth to do God's will (which is his plan and purpose for your life) and witness the gospel to non-believers... then why am i here?? I mean do you think it's God's plan for people to argue about irrelevant things such as how old this Earth is... i mean whats that got to do with the price of milk??

Heh, i know we're not all gonna agree on this, but i love all you guys all the same

--D-SIPL

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that suggests you tried

Graceworks Interactive

quote:

---

Originally posted by D-SIPL:
So ArchAngel if we are not on earth to do God's will (which is his plan and purpose for your life) and witness the gospel to non-believers...

---

wha? we're did that come from? Of course we're supposed to do God's will! Duh! and of course we're supposed to witness to non-believers, but just some people put that in front of God, and ministry becomes their idol. all I was saying. And yeah, Klumsy, you're totally right, most christians don't emphasis ministry enought... myself included.

------------------

Originally, I was planning on using Humphrey's model, mainly because not many people have heard about it and I thought it would make the story more interesting. Though if I do so, I'll include a note at the saying that while I used it as a story piece that no one should put their faith directly in it, or whatever I use, because it is based upon Man's knowledge and may not be true.

What do you guys think? My story pretty much requires that I acknowledge one or the other as the truth in the fantasy world. I'm still trying to figure out if it would even be possible for the story to be neutral, it would require a lot of dancing around certain subjects.

BTW, Isaac Newton was also a young-earther...

------------------
So if I stand let me stand on the promise that you will pull me through, and if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me to you. And if I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these songs, and if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.
(Rich Mullins)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv12n1_chronology.asp

------------------
So if I stand let me stand on the promise that you will pull me through, and if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me to you. And if I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these songs, and if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.
(Rich Mullins)

As Jesusman rightly asserts, the Bible doesn't say that the earth is six thousand years old, and I'd be careful about being too hard-nosed on the date, but sticking to the Bible's account of history, we're talking thousands, not millions of years. This is why it's even an issue, because once again this should be our source of information.

------------------
So if I stand let me stand on the promise that you will pull me through, and if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me to you. And if I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these songs, and if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.
(Rich Mullins)

There are two main assumptions that get people to old ages in the first place, the first is that everything was not created with the appearence of age, the second is that present rates of change have always remained constant (a number of rates are too quick anyway).

If you take Genesis to mean what it says, then you would in fact have a mature creation which would appear to have a past as soon as God spoke it into being. One hugh ross'r said God doesn't work like that, allow me to disagree, the same God took on flesh and blood and did miracles such as creating wine from water and multiplied fishes and bread, all of which would have the appearance of a past when in truth they had none (of the type you'd assume by looking at them). As II Peter 3:5 says, non-Christians are willfully ignorant that God spoke everything into existence, and that the Flood destroyed the entire world. If you believe in a worldwide flood, then you can hardly make the uniformitarian assumptions that the non-Christian does when looking at the geological evidence.

------------------
So if I stand let me stand on the promise that you will pull me through, and if I can't let me fall on the grace that first brought me to you. And if I sing let me sing for the joy that has born in me these songs, and if I weep let it be as a man who is longing for his home.
(Rich Mullins)