/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

There's different theological perspectives, I can't remember the precises names, there's Young Earth Creationism, the historical-something method, I really can't remember.

I just know Adventists and Baptists adhere to YEC.

Someone enlighten me on this topic, too.

Genesis is not a metaphor. The earth was created in 6 days. There's a reason why the Bible says "And the evening and the morning were the nth day.", explicating saying that the "day" is an actual day, and not millions of years.

>>615808

>>608990

>>601211

>>615817

and

>>615688

>>615104

>>615816

All life on Earth was created in 6 days, but the Earth was already in existence by verse 2 of the first chapter of Genesis. Read it carefully and stop listening to some man's faulty interpretation.

What's up with this same question being brought up in five threads this week? This is such a D&C question that really does not matter.

>>615835

>the Earth was already in existence by verse 2

nope

>replying to bait thread

>>615854

This isnt bait. I legit want to know. Some people are very serious about this.

>>615875

I heard from somewhere (I think the late Cris Putnam) that the creation story is also known as the Creation Hymn from Jewish folklore and the latter part of Genesis was given to Moses from God while he was up on Mt. Sinai for 40 days.

Juxtaposing the Creation Hymn (Genesis 1) with other creation stories during Moses' contemporary times makes a lot more sense from our current scientific understanding. For example, Native American folklore consists of some Bald Eagle creating an island floating in a sea of water and the Sky Woman sprinkling dust into the sky giving birth to stars and such nonsense which in contemporary times can easily be dismissed as folklore. However, the Creation Hymn from the Bible has remarkably held up well for the past 6,000 years.

>>615816

If that were truly the case, then there has been no subsequent "evening", meaning we're still in the 7th day. If we're still in the 7th day, then a "day" of Creation is clearly way more than the 24 hours made by man.

no

>>616064

Do you even know the context of that post? or will you keep posting this picture like a retard?

>>615882

The seventh day was completed with the coming of Christ. Welcome to the eighth day.

>>615821

this fam

>>615808

Nowhere in the Bible does it say how old the earth is. The whole "6,000 years" thing comes from a genealogy list of who begat whom, and the list not only isn't comprehensive (it only includes 'important' people and skips over insignificant ones), there's also the matter of accounting for how long ago the list itself was written.

>>615812

I myself am a Baptist, and have never met someone who thought the world was only 6,000 years old.

>>616408

It gives you all the dates from first day of vreation to when Cyrus the king Persia became king, so yes it is about 6000 >>615821

>>616374

So, a "day" isn't 24 hours. Thanks!

>>615882

What? Are you retarded?

>>616427

No, he's just a retard

Yes

>>615819

You're assuming that secular archeologists are correct about its age.

Reject the Ketonic heresy.

Read the words of our savior.

>Mark 10:6: But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

>Luke 11:50–51: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias…

And Paul:

>Romans 1:20: For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Paul is plainly saying that people have been able to perceive these attributes of God in His creation ever since the creation of the world. Not ever since people were created.

Jesus, speaking around 4,000 years after creation, was correct to say that Day 6, when humans were created, was effectively "the beginning of creation" as seen from thousands of years later. By contrast, a creation fifteen billion years ago on the secular timescale would put humans at the end of the time scale. It shows clearly how the acceptance of the secular timeline starkly contrasts with the statements of Jesus.

I urge you who claim to be followers of Christ to reject all claims that He was fallible, and to reject the model of the origin of the world concocted by men who hold hatred for our God. Macroevolution is the primary belief used as excuse for all manner of evil by atheists and Gnostic relativists.

The Ketonic heresy claims that our own God was mistaken in His beliefs. There can be bo room for compromise in the faith, for once you take away the very foundation of the Bible, then the Church is built upon sand.

Once the story of Creation and the genealogy given in the New Testament is declared to be only a parable, it opens the door for all kinds of mysticism and relativism, at which point you may as well be Gnostic.

God does not lie, and He does not make mistakes. Parables spoken by Christ are always explicitly stated to be parables.

Where, in the entire New Testament, are the verses spoken by Christ in this post declared to be parables?

1 Timothy 1:4 Not to give heed to fables and endless genealogies: which furnish questions rather than the edification of God, which is in faith.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law. For they are unprofitable and vain.

"Genesis, creation, and Early Man" by father Seraphim Rose.

Look up the mtDNA of the first woman and look up the first man, it says they lived 7500 years ago

>>622427

Or-now consider this-people have gravely misinterpreted the data.

The Six Thousand Year Hypothesis is based on the genologies. Like "person X begot Person Y who begot Person Z". People assume these are direct genologies like Person Y is the son of Person X. But they don't have to be direct Genologies. In other places in the Bible they say "Person A begot Person F" excluding generations B-E. So that means Adam could have lived way more than 1 million years ago

>>622915

I mean more than 6 thousand not more than a million

>>622915

Maybe it's slightly more but to say a million is completely autistic

Also I'm pretty sure Luke 3 includes everyone in Jesus' geanology and includes a few not found elsewhere in the Bible

>>622918

I meant to say more than 6 thousand years. I don't really know how long ago humans can be first found. But yeah genologies doesn't have to be direct so the earth doesn't have to be only 6 thousand years old

>>622920

>Luke 11:50–51: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias…

<Jesus, speaking around 4,000 years after creation, was correct to say that Day 6, when humans were created, was effectively "the beginning of creation"

>>622921

How does this relate to me saying genologies don't have to be direct

>>622923

I think he neans that there couldn't have been a big gap in genologies if it's from around the foundation of earth

How do you guys explain the plethora of fossils found that date millions of years back? Or the dinosaur bones? Someone help me out here.

>>623002

Carbon dating is wrong, freshly killed animals have been dated as a thousand years old

>>622904

>>623002

I'm going to try to take a minute to explain my perspective on this. Hundreds of years of geology, paleontology, and decades of genetic research are all interlinked with regard to the estimated "historical age" of the Earth. Science is a house of cards, and if you pull out part of the foundation then the rest of the structure collapses. We can't just discount all the data willy-nilly because it's not convenient for us. Some will turn to fringe researchers that disagree with popular theories but I think that's a cop-out that avoids the main issue.

Nevertheless, we know that the Bible is infallible and true. The genealogies aren't faked or exaggerated, and basic elements of human biology (such as the amount of time men are capable of living) have changed since Genesis took place. How is this possible?

Omphalos Theory makes the most sense to me because it takes into account two things we often forget about God: Firstly, that He is omnipotent, and second, that He is outside of time.

As Omphalos Theory states, every time God brought something into being in Genesis, He brought it into being in the present, which affected the nature of created reality, bringing forth the same object with a logical past. That is to say, when God made the Moon, the amount of matter it took to create the Moon suddenly did, but also always had, existed. Elements of the past change to meet the present because God is not bound by time and can alter it freely, and the new reality created is truly "real;" the only thing that remains is our memory of how things were.

This concept is incredibly compelling to me because it can be applied to any significant change of the way things are now with how they used to be. Take human lifespan for instance – men used to live as long as 900 years in the past, but God limited men to living 120 years in Genesis 6:3. When God proclaimed this, that men would live 120 years, it affected not only the present but also the past. At once, men currently alive lost the ability to live that long, but it also reverberated through how things used to be, and our lifespan was rendered in creation as shorter as a result. Men now have shorter lifespans, and the state of being where they lived longer was wiped from both present and past, save for our memories of the previous existence. The reality of longer lifespans and the reality of shorter lifespans were both real, it's just that the former can no longer be proven to exist outside of our written records.

It's a tricky idea and I'm not really explaining it well, but I absolutely love it.

>>623002

It is generally accepted in YEC that they were deposited in a catastrophic, global flood, and most dating methods are demonstrably unreliable.

>>615808

No, of course it is not heresy.

My view is that there is no reason to read Genesis literally, especially when it contains two conflicting accounts and there are other questions, such as how the author knew what to write – one cannot imagine a scribe was sat on a cloud somewhere watching it all unfold. Jewish tradition ascribes authorship to Moses, but textual analysis suggests two authors at slightly different times, or the coming together of two similar yet divergent oral traditions. Now, if we knew the author and their intentions we might better situate the text and what it is claiming about itself, such as how allegorical or it wishes to be or otherwise – plenty of ancient writers wrote theologically and with knowing intent. We can do this with the New Testament books, for example, because we can trace them back to within their authors' lifetimes and the sociopolitical and cultural circumstances surrounding them. Beyond suggesting the Old Testament was compiled around the fifth century B.C. (before which it was an oral tradition) for the then-Persian emperor, there is little explicit detail to follow.

>>615882

>24h

there is your problem

Also, these >>616374, >>615879, >>616408, >>622435, >>622915, >>622920 and >>630622.

>>630622

>There was day before the sun

Do you also not believe New Jerusalem is real?

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

>There were birds without roosting possibilities, just water

He made land before birds.

>God had to rest

symism of the sabath day. Read exodus 20:11

>>630639

>because the Earth was already in a dark and void state as stated in Genesis 1:2.

No, Exodus 20:11 says ge created the earth, heaven, and sea in 6 days. The sea isn't mentioned in Genesis 1 untill the end of verse 2 so there can't be a gap between verse 1 and 2. Also it says "and all that in them is" which probably means animals

>>615808

6000 years is a mistranslation. The garden of Eden is a place in Sumer.

>>632282

>mistranslation

[Citation needed]

>>615821

>baptist

lol

>Is it heresy to not believe the earth is 6000 years old?

No because the earth is 7526 years old.

>>632286

Oops, it's technically God created the Earth in 7 days that's a mistranslation. It should say era, not day. It's the garden of Eden that existed roughly 6000 years ago.

>>632309

Post sources for the era translation. Is it the same word translated as "day" everywhere else in the Bible?

Why was there no evening on the seventh day?

>>632396

Because our era is not finished.

If Genesis was literal then why wouldn't God just tell what really happened by explaining the process of evolietion?

>>615808

The Church says this: "Genesis is literal"-Creationism is not outright forbidden or heresy, but it's dangerously naive as it is a theological treatment on how the earth and everything came into being. In addition to that, the Church acknowledges scientific findings from the last 2000 years - which Moses simply did not have. In addition to that, the process was for sure something we humans wouldn't be able to grasp anyway, hence Moses' treatment of the topic. On the other hand, the Church condemns scientism harshly, because if evolution and everything was a purely statistical process - especially in the very beginnings of everything (despite the fact that it lacks the answer to "how does something come from nothing") - then it phases out God on purpose, which is obviously highly un-Christian.

The question one should be asking is more like: Why do people obsess with this question of Creation theories ? It literally creates division throughout and within all different Christian denominations and it certainly is not edifying for salvation, let alone can we know it all and for sure purely from our on thinking and trusting having faith in our own intellect. Trust in the Holy Spirit and His guidance.

>>634719

As Genesis is a theological treatment*

>>634719

>acknowledges scientific findings from the last 2000 years - which Moses simply did not have

>which Moses simply did not have

You realize that the books of Moses were written by the Holy Ghost right? Did God not know about science? And Exodus 20:11 is literally from God

>>632308

6292*

>>634719

See this:

>>634743

>>634743

>And Exodus 20:11 is literally from God

more specifically from the Father's finger

>>615821

>can't be bothered to write even a single word

memebs de awderse XXDDDD

>>615808

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man by Father Seraphim Rose.

>>615808

None of the church fathers thought the story of the garden was meant to be taken literally

>>639676

proof?

>>639676

The story of the Garden is real and shame on you for bearing false witness on what the Church Fathers said. Also, how do you square the fact that in the Book of Matthew and other books in the Bible, they specifically mention Adam as being the first in the genealogy line? Unless perhaps you've never read your Bible.

>>630624

<My view is that there is no reason to read Genesis literally, especially when it contains two conflicting accounts

Wrong, the genesis 2:4 account is

>These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Which is not the same as listing day after day in genesis 1. So they can both be true.

>>616374

>The seventh day was completed with the coming of Christ. Welcome to the eighth day.

Wrong, read hebrews 4:1-9

>LET us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

>For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

>For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

>For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

>And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.

>Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

>Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

>For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

>There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

>>616427

john 11:9

>Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.

>>615808

>Is it heresy to not believe the earth is 6000 years old?

No, because it is possible there was a gap in time between genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Read proverbs 8, isaiah 14, john 8:44, revelation 11:8, hebrews 9:26, revelation 20:10,14-15, and finally then read ezekiel 31 with special note of the isaiah 14 reference to satan as the assaryian and keeping in mind that satan, the ruler of the kingdoms of the world due to matthew 4:8-10/jerimiah 27with allowance from God because of romans 13:1, has the city of babylon referenced as sodom and egypt. Then pay extra note to the last verse of ezekiel 31 where all that compares to the john 8:44 "murderer from the beginning" part in reference to herbews 9:26 and the second death of revelation 20:10,14-15. Then you have your explanation for why God said in genesis 9:11

>neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth

Even though God only destroyed all flesh as noah was able to get off on dry land just fine without God needing to make/form they are synonyms see https://archive.fo/JWIwu the earth.

>Or to think genesis is a metafor?

Now this yes, because as others have pointed out the genealogies start with adam in matthew 1 and exodus 20:11 literally states

>For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

He "made" them. Or after the earth was destroyed by the first flood of ezekiel 31:15 God in genesis had to make/form the earth. While also making/forming everything else.

<but anon, ezekiel 31 implies men were roaming the earth at the time and God didn't create man/flesh until genesis 1:26.

You would be correct so see how man can be a synonym of angel depending on context in revelation 21:17.

Now re-read all those verses again and use only the KJV or it makes no sense.

>>639676

That's wrong but why hell would I care what they think?

Here's my take on the matter: No matter what you believe, you are literally believing someone else's narrative of what happened. You didn't see it happen, and neither did they.

So when someone comes and says, "this or that is 2 billion years old." How do you know that? How do you know that your methods of measuring something's age is adequate to cover that length of time? Did you witness it yourself? Test your methods over billions of years? No, you're just guessing and making stuff up.

>>641124

>this or that is 2 billion years old." How do you know that? How do you know that your methods of measuring something's age is adequate to cover that length of time? Did you witness it yourself? Test your methods over billions of years? No, you're just guessing and making stuff up.

This, i've also come to think about with just the simple thought of, *Wait a min you've never been there, and the truth is a lot of history once we start getting back into the ancients is, that it's a fog of war we just don't know and don't have a full picture. Was actually watching vid related from Mister dyer and it really does feel like sometimes they just make this stuff up as they go along.

watch the documentary "is genesis history?". There are some paleontologists and geologists who argue in favor of the young earth theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tudQkA06tTM

Kurt Wise is one of the best scientists defending YEC.

>>641629

>""""paleontologists"""" and """"geologists""""

To say that Abel doesn't exist but Zacharias did is absolutely retarded. Why would Jesus say the blood of a fictional character to the blood of a real one? Also it said Abel was killed near the foundation of the workd, not bijiwwions of years later.

Luke 11

50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

>>641634

they received their degree in those areas. what should I call them?

>>639676

t. Origen

Believing all humans came from 2 humans means you're a retard, but believing all life came from aliens is science

41:00

https://youtu.be/PPLRhVdNp5M

>>642640

>Believing all humans came from 2 humans means you're a retard

there's debate whether or not adam or eve were the first "man" or the first "rational man", because other man-kind is referenced as being alive during genesis

catholics define "image of God" as "Logos", aka human rationality. in other words, that there were other "humans" around before Adam + Eve is a valid theory, but we must all be descended from that unique line of rational creatures that would be Adam & Eve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

you can see all that science/academic back-tracking here, but what all Christians need to establish is that all of man can be traced back to a common ancestor