SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Did God Create Over Billions of Years

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )
PosterThread
TrueWitness
Member



Joined: 2006/8/10
Posts: 551


 Re:

Where in Genesis chapter one is the creation of our Sun mentioned? Answer: verses 16-18:
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The Sun and moon were CREATED on the FOURTH DAY!

Right there we can say that the length of a day in this 6 day creation account is uncertain. What was the length of days one, two and three if there was no SUN yet.

It is also odd that plants were created on day three before there was a SUN.

 2012/1/29 2:17Profile
MrBillPro
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3348
Texas

 Re:

Quote:
TrueWitness..Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The Sun and moon were CREATED on the FOURTH DAY!



Exactly! so how could the first 3 days be measured without the sun and moon? :)


_________________
Bill

 2012/1/29 14:23Profile
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1901


 Re:

Hi True witness,
Death and Sin had not entered the world at this stage so the plant could not die

"It is also odd that plants were created on day three before there was a SUN"

Do you believe in Evolution?

Yours Staff

 2012/1/29 14:35Profile
MrBillPro
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3348
Texas

 Re:

Quote:
ArtB...Here is a topic that I have some expertise in.



And a topic I have none in, just common sense, and common sense may not be enough.


_________________
Bill

 2012/1/29 14:36Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Exactly! so how could the first 3 days be measured without the sun and moon? :)



They were measured by 'morning and evening' making them the same length as the days after the sun and moon were created.

OJ

 2012/1/29 14:37
staff
Member



Joined: 2007/2/8
Posts: 1901


 Re:

Hi Mrbillpro,
If you cant measure isnt it possible that it is exactly 24hrs?
Also could you address the issue of Gen 5.5 which says that All the days of Adams life was 930years including day 6 and 7.
Do you believe in evolution?

 2012/1/29 14:40Profile
MrBillPro
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3348
Texas

 Re:

Quote:
staff....Hi Mrbillpro..Do you believe in evolution?



You know, I don't know who you are, but I am here to learn, and sometimes during debates info/reactions/opinions of others are what gathers understanding for all. For you to ask me if I believe in evolution, just takes me farther away from any opinion or beliefs you might interject. This would be no different than us talking about alcohol, and someone disagreeing with you, and you ask them if their an alcoholic. You really need to pray before interjecting your questions to others so freely. No, I don't believe in evolution, if so I would not be a member of SI, I am here because I believe in Jesus Christ, and love to discuss him, and not things that no one really knows for sure but you.


_________________
Bill

 2012/1/29 14:54Profile
TrueWitness
Member



Joined: 2006/8/10
Posts: 551


 Re:

No, I absolutely do not believe in evolution. I do however believe in a long age for the Earth (millions and perhaps billions of years old). I know that evolutionists require a long age for the Earth if their theory is to have any credibility. Remember, there are two parts to evolution. They believe 1) life sprang from dead molecules without any assistance from sentient being(s). And
2) once life did take hold on Earth, these life forms slowly evolved in shape and function into different organisms.
I whole-heartedly reject and renounce the first assertion about dead molecules randomly colliding and then at a certain point a fortuitous collision and perhaps energy from a lightning bolt created a living cell. Preposterous.
As to point 2, I do not believe that a species of plant or animal can "evolve" into another species. So I reject any notion of humans having fish or lizard or ape ancestors. I do believe that God does furnish beneficial changes to a specie in an isolated environment in order to help them cope with that environment. So I do believe that God providentially gave black people dark skin pigment to help them cope with sunny climates. I do not classify this as evolution. I call it adaptation. Because let me ask you a question: What race were Adam and Eve? Whatever answer you give me, my next question would be: From where or how did the other races come into existence? As a creationist, you had better have an answer, and if you are like me who does not believe in evolution, adaptation makes sense. Again, I believe that adaptation is only relatively minor things that occurs in a specie and does not make a specie a new specie. I am not a trained biologist so I don't know how big a change would make a specie a new specie, but I am sure it would have to be quite significant. I don't believe a specie can have any changes without the providential hand of God initiating and producing it and there is no record of a specie becoming a new specie. Anyone who says they have record of one is looking at two species which always existed as separate species, one of which or perhaps both is now extinct.
I believe in an old age Earth and Universe mainly because we know for certain that the most distant stars (quasars) are 13 - 15 billion light years away. Also radiometric dating of rocks here on Earth indicates an old age for Earth. But just because I believe in an old age for Earth does not mean I believe in evolution. I don't.

 2012/1/29 15:16Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2012
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Quote:

TrueWitness..Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The Sun and moon were CREATED on the FOURTH DAY!



Exactly! so how could the first 3 days be measured without the sun and moon? :)



Actually days are not governed by the sun and the moon. Days are governed by the rotation of the earth. The moon governs months (roughly) and the trip around the sun combined with the tilt of the earth's axis governs a year combined with its seasons.


_________________
Travis

 2012/1/29 15:30Profile
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2012
Joplin, Missouri

 Some thoughts on the length of the creation week

Have thought about and studied this topic for years now. Here are some things that I would like to throw out for consideration.

Some thoughts on the day age theory.

I came from a movement that taught very dogmatically that the creation days were thousand year periods. I always wondered where that dogma came from. The only scripture that was used as a proof text was 2Peter 3:7-9.

(7) But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
(8) But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
(9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

But as I study this passage I realize that it speaks of the sure coming of the Lord’s judgment even if the time seems to be long to us. God is outside of time and He is sure to execute His will regardless of what the intervening generations seem to suggest. Look just a few verses earlier and you will see the statement that Peter is addressing.

2Pe 3:4
(4) And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

So I do not believe this verse can be used as a proof text for the day-age theory unless it is yanked from its context.

Like I said, I always wondered where this idea came from and one day I was reading some of Parham’s sermons and I came across what seems to me to be the answer, at least for Parham. The following is a quote from one of his sermons. “Long ago the theory that the seven days of creation were of twenty-four hours duration began to lose its force upon the minds of the people, and today is found only in narrow intellects with a moss covered growth…During the first day (age or thousand years), the Bible and science beautifully agree.”, The Selected Sermons of the Late Charles F. Parham.

I have seen this over and over again. When new scientific discoveries seem to contradict the Bible we will latch onto man’s wisdom rather than holding firmly to the word of God. It seems from his comments, “narrow intellects”, and, “the Bible and science beautifully agree”, that Parham left the Word and got into the intellect on this one. We are all apt to do the same in some area or another.

The day age theory does not agree with a straight-forward reading of Genesis. In other words, if you did not need a day age theory for some extra-Biblical reason then you would never have reason to see a day age theory in what you were reading. With the coming of old-earth ideas to the forefront of secular science came pressure to reinterpret the Bible so the two would agree. But to reinterpret the Bible to try to fit extra-Biblical ideas is to, in my opinion, violate the Word of God.

One interesting question for day-age proponents. If Adam were formed on day 6 (and it would have to have been somewhat early since Adam was brought all of the animals to name), and if God rested on day 7, and if the temptation was on day 8, then we have a contradiction in scripture that cannot be reconciled. Scripture clearly states how many years after the birth of Seth that
Adam lived. It also clearly states how old Adam was when He died. But if the days were 1000 years then the Bible is off by at least 1000 years (the length of the day of rest in day-age belief) when it reports Adam’s age. Parham recognized this and invented a difference in the created and formed race which was an idea that was even odder than the 1000 year days.

If there is not compelling Biblical reason to take a passage as anything other than literal then I believe we should take it at face value. I believe they were 24 hour days. By the way, there was a time when the church was debating whether or not the days were 24 hours or SHORTER time periods as they argued that God was so great that it should not have taken Him that long. But again, man’s reasoning seeking to change scripture.

The same can be said of the gap theory. It runs hand in hand with the idea of ruin-reconstruction. Look at this quote from Dake. Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible: “When men finally agree on the age of the earth, then place the many years (over the historical 6,000) between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there will be no conflict between the Book of Genesis and science.” The motivation for the theory is to try to make the Bible fit with what secular scientists are saying. I have studies the scriptures that Dake et.al. have tried to use to support this idea. But like 1 Peter 3, they are all pulled out of context to some degree or another. If it were not for needing to make the Bible agree with old-earth evolutionary ideas one would never need to put a gap between the first two chapter of Genesis. I will say that one thing that the gap theory has going for it is that it has been around longer than popularized evolution and old-earth ideas. It can be traced back to about 1600. But does this mean it is right? The age of an idea is no indicator of its veracity.


_________________
Travis

 2012/1/29 15:32Profile





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy