Jump to content

SovereignGraceSingles

Welcome to SovereignGraceSingles.com. Where Reformed Faith and Romance Come Together! We are the only Christian dating website for Christian Singles in the Reformed Faith worldwide. Our focus is to bring together Christian singles of all ages. Reformed single Christian men and women who wish to meet other Reformed Christian singles for spiritually, like-minded, loving relationships.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” - Genesis 2:18
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

Meet Like Minded Believers Can two walk together except they be agreed? - Amos 3:3
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Join us now

SovereignGraceSingles

SGS offers a "fenced" community: both for private single members and also a public Protestant forums open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene-derived Christian Church.
Join us now
Guest

Poll Question: Creationism, OEC or YEC?

Poll Question: Creationism, OEC or YEC?  

69 members have voted

  1. 1. Poll Question: Creationism, OEC or YEC?

    • OEC
      23
    • YEC
      34
    • Don't Know
      3
    • Don't Care
      1
    • Doesn't Matter
      9


Recommended Posts

davy

Those who believe the fossil record shows and ancient earth ignore the reality of a worldwide flood. During this flood vast changes in the geology of the earth took place in a very short period of time. Here is what the Bible says about the subject:

Scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

(2 Peter 3:3-6 ESV)

Here is a post I made in my blog about this subject: https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/flood-deniers-2/

 

Are those who see the fossil evidence as being very old denying that the flood of Noah's day happened as written in God's Word??? No, of course not.

 

I'm amazed at all the very weak arguments presented here against OEC merely based on 'guilt by association' ploys.

 

What Apostle Peter was actually showing in 2 Pet.3 was an ancient destroyed earth before the flood of Noah's day...

 

2 Peter 3:5-6

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

KJV

 

One must rightly divide those phrases:

 

"that by the word of God the heavens were of old" - God's original creation at Gen.1:1 which He spoke into existence, this is the reference point that MUST be used for this particular context of Scripture, not the time of Noah.

 

"the earth standing out of the water and in the water" - description of Gen.1:2, and then through Gen.1:10 with the "face of the waters" upon the earth from an ancient flood, with God then moving part of those waters up to make today's sky, and then moving the waters left on the surface of the earth to make the dry land appear.

 

"Whereby the world that then was," - referring to passages about the earth's state at Gen.1:2, which in the Hebrew the phrase "without form, and void" actually means 'a waste and an indistinguishable ruin', and is comparable to how the phrase is used in Jeremiah 4:23.

 

Thusly 3 world ages:

 

1. "the world that then was" - God's original perfect creation before Satan rebelled

 

2. "the heavens and the earth which are now" - the re-establishing of the earth after Gen.1:2 which is today's present world, and including a second flood upon the earth where Noah and his, and the animals God preserved aboard the ark.

 

3. "new heavens and a new earth" - God's Eternity, after Christ's 1,000 years reign.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
I'm sorry William, but it's an assumption without basis that a belief in OEC must involve Darwinism and evolution theory. Where does that thinking come from?

 

It is not an assumption, but an observation about those that I have personally engaged which confirmed their belief in Darwinian Evolution. If it is your point that not all OEC believe in Darwinian Evolution, then Origen made that point in his OP. By all means please continue...

 

 

Are those who see the fossil evidence as being very old denying that the flood of Noah's day happened as written in God's Word??? No, of course not.

 

I'm amazed at all the very weak arguments presented here against OEC merely based on 'guilt by association' ploys.

 

What Apostle Peter was actually showing in 2 Pet.3 was an ancient destroyed earth before the flood of Noah's day...

 

2 Peter 3:5-6

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

KJV

 

One must rightly divide those phrases:

 

"that by the word of God the heavens were of old" - God's original creation at Gen.1:1 which He spoke into existence, this is the reference point that MUST be used for this particular context of Scripture, not the time of Noah.

 

"the earth standing out of the water and in the water" - description of Gen.1:2, and then through Gen.1:10 with the "face of the waters" upon the earth from an ancient flood, with God then moving part of those waters up to make today's sky, and then moving the waters left on the surface of the earth to make the dry land appear.

 

"Whereby the world that then was," - referring to passages about the earth's state at Gen.1:2, which in the Hebrew the phrase "without form, and void" actually means 'a waste and an indistinguishable ruin', and is comparable to how the phrase is used in Jeremiah 4:23.

 

Thusly 3 world ages:

 

1. "the world that then was" - God's original perfect creation before Satan rebelled

 

2. "the heavens and the earth which are now" - the re-establishing of the earth after Gen.1:2 which is today's present world, and including a second flood upon the earth where Noah and his, and the animals God preserved aboard the ark.

 

3. "new heavens and a new earth" - God's Eternity, after Christ's 1,000 years reign.

 

 

I found John Calvin's commentary on 2 Peter 3:5-6 helpful:

 

5.For this they willingly are ignorant of. By one argument only he confutes the scoff of the ungodly, even by this, that the world once perished by a deluge of waters, when yet it consisted of waters. (Gen 1:2.) And as the history of this was well known, he says that they willingly, or of their own accord, erred. For they who infer the perpetuity of the world from its present state, designedly close their eyes, so as not to see so clear a judgment of God. The world no doubt had its origin from waters, for Moses calls the chaos from which the earth emerged, waters; and further, it was sustained by waters; it yet pleased the Lord to use waters for the purpose of destroying it. It hence appears that the power of nature is not sufficient to sustain and preserve the world, but that on the contrary it contains the very element of its own ruin, whenever it may please God to destroy it.

For it ought always to be borne in mind, that the world stands through no other power than that of God's word, and that therefore inferior or secondary causes derive from him their power, and produce different effects as they are directed. Thus through water the world stood, but water could have done nothing of itself, but on the contrary obeyed God's word as an inferior agent or element. As soon then as it pleased God to destroy the earth, the same water obeyed in becoming a ruinous inundation. We now see how egregiously they err, who stop at naked elements, as though there was perpetuity in them, and their nature were not changeable according to the bidding of God.

 

By these few words the petulance of those is abundantly refuted, who arm themselves with physical reasons to fight against God. For the history of the deluge is an abundantly sufficient witness that the whole order of nature is governed by the sole power of God. (Gen 7:17.)

 

It seems, however, strange that he says that the world perished through the deluge, when he had before mentioned the heaven and the earth. To this I answer, that the heaven was then also submerged, that is, the region of the air, which stood open between the two waters. For the division or separation, mentioned by Moses, was then confounded. Gen 1:6 and the word heaven is often taken in this sense. if any wishes for more on this subject, let him read Augustine on the City of God. Lib. 20. (178)

 

(178) The two verses, the fifth and the sixth, have been differently explained. “The earth,” say some, “subsisting from water and through water,” that is, emerging from water and made firm and solid by means of water; which is true, for through moisture the earth adheres together and becomes a solid mass. Others render the last clause, “in water,” or in the midst of water, that is, surrounded by water; and this is the most suitable meaning.

 

The δι ᾿ ὧν at the beginning of the sixth verse, refers, according to Beza, Whitby, and others, to the heavens and the earth in the preceding verse, the deluge being occasioned by “the windows of heaven being opened,” and “the fountains of the great deep being broken up.” (Gen 7:11.) “By which (or by the means of which) the world at that time, being overflowed with water, was destroyed.”

 

The objection to this view is, as justly stated by Macknight, that the correspondence between this verse and the following is thereby lost: the reservation of the world to be destroyed by fire is expressly ascribed, in verse seventh, to God’s word; and to the same ought the destruction of the old world to be ascribed. This is doubtless the meaning required by the passage, but “which” being in the plural, creates a difficulty, and there is no different reading. Macknight solves the difficulty by saying that the plural “which” or whom, refers to “word,” meaning Christ, and “God,” as in the first verse of this chapter, “in both which,” a reference is made to what is implied in “the second Epistle,” that is, the first. He supposes that there is here the same anomalous mode of speaking. But the conjecture which has been made is not improbable, that it is a typographical mistake, ὧν being put for οὗ or for ὃν. Then the meaning would be evident; and the two parts would correspond the one with the other:

 

5. “For of this they are wilfully ignorant, that the heavens existed of old and the earth (which subsisted from water and in water,) by

6. the word of God; by which the world at that time, being over-

7. flowed with water, was destroyed. But the present heavens and the earth are by His word reserved, being kept for fire to the day of judgment and of the perdition of ungodly men.”

 

By “word” here is meant command, or power, or the fiat by which the world was created; and by the same it was destroyed, and by the same it will be finally destroyed. Instead of αὐτῶ “the same” Griesbach has introduced into his text αὐτοῦ, “His.” — Ed

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
davy

 

It is not an assumption, but an observation about those that I have personally engaged which confirmed their belief in Darwinian Evolution. If it is your point that not all OEC believe in Darwinian Evolution, then Origen made that point in his OP. By all means please continue...

 

 

 

I found John Calvin's commentary on 2 Peter 3:5-6 helpful:

 

 

 

God bless,

William

 

It certainly is one of my points that not all OEC entertain nor believe Darwinian evolution as fact. I made that idea plain in my initial statements, since we seem to be playing lawyer-speak here.

 

John Calvin's commentary is irrelevant, and that especially since he contradicted himself in that quote regarding the purpose and use of water in participation of God's act of having created the heavens and the earth by speaking it into existence. Calvin's notion excludes Peter's stated idea of the earth standing in and out the water being evidence of post-creation and a view of God having already created the heavens and the earth. Peter's statement is not about a situation where only waters were existing with nothing else created yet.

 

2 Peter 3:5-6

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

KJV

 

 

I further present the idea also that Calvin made a false conclusion in that quote of just what the scoffer was willingly ignorant of, for Peter was speaking of the scoffer being in unbelief about God having before destroyed the earth with water, while that idea in no way contradicts nor disproves the idea that the earth had already been created at Genesis 1:1, and the destruction occurred in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, with 1:2 being the actual resulting condition of that destruction with Hebrew tohuw va bohuw, which are Hebrew phrases the KJV translators took liberty to interpret opposite of their actual majority usage in the Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts.

 

No sir, the argument you present against OEC is not about the scoffers Apostle Peter was talking about in 2 Peter 3. The way I understand the Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 agrees whole-heartedly that God brought a destruction upon the earth by water to destroy the old world at the time when Satan first rebelled against Him. To hold this idea makes it impossible to be a scoffer willingly ignorant of God's destruction of old upon this earth.

 

Peter's statement about the scoffers is actually about those who are willingly ignorant of God's original perfect creation of the heavens and the earth at Genesis 1:1, and then the reason why the earth became in a condition of standing in and out of the water revealing a destruction by a flood of old which God did to end Satan's rebellion of old. It is this idea Peter is actually speaking of, and later in 2 Peter 3 reiterates this about the world that then was that God destroyed at Satan's rebellion when speaking of how Apostle Paul also wrote of these things which are for some, hard to understand, seeing as they wrest with other deep things in Scripture.

 

Share this post


Link to post
biege

I don't discriminate between the two. I believe that creation can be the possibility of the two. It's really hard to explain since we're not there to witness such event. I would choose both for I am a believer of science and theology. Perhaps, this happens to most medical students as well who studied under the works of the church.

Share this post


Link to post
Diego

I just voted OEC. I do NOT believe in evolution. But I am NOT a scientist, nor am I at ALL good at science by ANY stretch of the imagination. YEC could be true for all I know. However, I don't personally believe that Dinosaurs coexisted with Men. but who the heck knows, as far as my knowledge goes. I just know the Bible tells us about Adam and Eve, and it tells us about the Flood, and and all that. Therefore, I accept that information. But as to whether OEC is true, or YEC is true, I don't know. But the Rabbis do mention that the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars were NOT created until the Fourth Day, and yet there was Light on the First Day. The Rabbis explain that that Light was Light from the Throne of God. For all I know, they may be right. But I am not going to claim certainty of that. However, think about the fact that without the Sun, the only way to have a 24 hour day is by the Command of God. Now, that could easily occur of course. But it would NOT be through the natural means of the Earth moving around on her axis. So God would have had to device another way, OR he could have made a day of any length he wanted for the first Three. I don't claim to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Cygnus
I just voted OEC. I do NOT believe in evolution. But I am NOT a scientist, nor am I at ALL good at science by ANY stretch of the imagination. YEC could be true for all I know. However, I don't personally believe that Dinosaurs coexisted with Men. but who the heck knows, as far as my knowledge goes. I just know the Bible tells us about Adam and Eve, and it tells us about the Flood, and and all that. Therefore, I accept that information. But as to whether OEC is true, or YEC is true, I don't know. But the Rabbis do mention that the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars were NOT created until the Fourth Day, and yet there was Light on the First Day. The Rabbis explain that that Light was Light from the Throne of God. For all I know, they may be right. But I am not going to claim certainty of that. However, think about the fact that without the Sun, the only way to have a 24 hour day is by the Command of God. Now, that could easily occur of course. But it would NOT be through the natural means of the Earth moving around on her axis. So God would have had to device another way, OR he could have made a day of any length he wanted for the first Three. I don't claim to know.

 

Diego, As a believer of the bible i see all of the above can be known.

I believe dinosaurs coexisted with man, were on Noahs ark and departed from the ark. Scientist find dinosaur tissue that is still soft which makes one wonder how it cow;d have survived for 65+ million years without decomposing or fossilizing.

 

Concerning the age of the universe there is the theory of Russ Humphreys and how the universe came to be based upon biblical concepts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
wfredeemed009

OEC for me. I was a YEC, but I later discovered that the Bible does allow an old earth. I basically subscribe to the beliefs of http://godandscience.org/ I used to study this extensively, but later realized I couldn't find unquestionable proof for the case of YEC, OEC or theological evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Cygnus
OEC for me. I was a YEC, but I later discovered that the Bible does allow an old earth. I basically subscribe to the beliefs of http://godandscience.org/ I used to study this extensively, but later realized I couldn't find unquestionable proof for the case of YEC, OEC or theological evolution.

 

Doy you really think so? I would love to see the biblical proof for an old earth. You know, where the bible allows it.

I followed your link...but it wasn't specific enough. Lots to look at, lots to disagre with and lots to agree with....did you have one in particular?

 

As to biblical evidence for a young earth...why not add up the chronology like Ussher did?

 

Share this post


Link to post
wfredeemed009

As hard as it is for me to say this, I don't have all the answers. I feel the Genealogy explanation in above site is sufficient and the interpretation of original Hebrew on the site makes a pretty good case for an old earth. That's really all I have to say about the topic, as I said before, I spent too much time worrying about it previously. God Bless!

Share this post


Link to post
Cygnus
As hard as it is for me to say this, I don't have all the answers. I feel the Genealogy explanation in above site is sufficient and the interpretation of original Hebrew on the site makes a pretty good case for an old earth. That's really all I have to say about the topic, as I said before, I spent too much time worrying about it previously. God Bless!

 

Perhaps you can turn your head and not worry about it...that's OK. But, I went to the Genealogy section and couldn't really establish an old earth position from it. Perhaps some people were left off the list....but the addition of them doesn't put creation 4 billions of years ago. I doubt it would even push Adam back to 10K years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William

 

Perhaps you can turn your head and not worry about it...that's OK. But, I went to the Genealogy section and couldn't really establish an old earth position from it. Perhaps some people were left off the list....but the addition of them doesn't put creation 4 billions of years ago. I doubt it would even push Adam back to 10K years ago.

 

G'morning Cygnus,

 

Can you imagine how many people would need be included to go back to 4 billion years? What also interests me is if we say the earth is 4 billion years of age then the issue of whether the earth was inhabitable in its infancy - all kinds of problems come to surface. If the earth was inhabitable for 2 billion years, then Genealogy would only need go back to a single cell organism in that age (I crack myself up), seriously though, from Scripture I just don't see how or why it would need go back that far.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
William said:
Can you imagine how many people would need be included to go back to 4 billion years? What also interests me is if we say the earth is 4 billion years of age then the issue of whether the earth was inhabitable in its infancy - all kinds of problems come to surface. If the earth was inhabitable for 2 billion years, then Genealogy would only need go back to a single cell organism (named Ted) in that age (I crack myself up), seriously though, from Scripture I just don't see how or why it would need go back that far.

That is far from true especially in my case. I hold to OEC. It is not necessary to hold the view that human beings go back any further than Adam and still believe the Earth is ca. 4 billion years. The phrase "heavens and Earth" is a merism. A merism (or merismus) is a figure of speech which uses a pair of contrasting words or phrases to express totality or completeness. God brings the whole of creation into being. Whether it is something that happens in a moment or over time, the text does not state. All that is really need is that one believe God did and without God is could have never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
That is far from true especially in my case. I hold to OEC. It is not necessary to hold the view that human beings goes back any further than Adam and still believe the Earth is ca. 4 billion years. The phrase "heavens and Earth" is a merism. A merism is a figure of speech which uses a pair of contrasting words or phrases to express totality or completeness. God brings the whole of creation into being. Whether it is something that happens in a moment or over time, the text does not state. All that is really need is that one believe God did and without God is could have never happened.

 

Just one question. Where did you get the 4 billion years age of the earth from?

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
Just one question. Where did you get the 4 billion years age of the earth from?

 

God bless,

William

Actually I was just repeating the number that was given in this thread. Your point?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
Actually I was just repeating the number that was given in this thread. Your point?

 

 

Just wondering how anyone could come to billions of years from Scripture alone. And what possibly could lead a person to think "heaven and earth" are a figure of speech?

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
Just wondering how anyone could come to billions of years from Scripture alone.

 

God bless,

William

It also does not say that human beings have existed for ca. 10,000 years. Nevertheless not every truth on every subject can be found in the Bible.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Cygnus

 

G'morning Cygnus,

 

Can you imagine how many people would need be included to go back to 4 billion years? What also interests me is if we say the earth is 4 billion years of age then the issue of whether the earth was inhabitable in its infancy - all kinds of problems come to surface. If the earth was inhabitable for 2 billion years, then Genealogy would only need go back to a single cell organism in that age (I crack myself up), seriously though, from Scripture I just don't see how or why it would need go back that far.

 

God bless,

William

 

My point was that even if genealogy was missing from the list....you really can't get pass 10K years.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
Cygnus said:
My point was that even if genealogy was missing from the list....you really can't get pass 10K years.

My point was that it has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. As I said above, it is not necessary to hold the view that human beings go back any further than Adam, and one may still believe the Earth is ca. 4 billion years. The phrase "heavens and Earth" is a merism. A merism (or merismus) is a figure of speech which uses a pair of contrasting words or phrases to express totality or completeness. God brings the whole of creation into being. Whether it is something that happens in a moment or over time, the text does not state.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
It also does not say that human beings have existed for ca. 10,000 years. Nevertheless not every truth on every subject can be found in the Bible.

 

 

I'm not aware of any gaps between the Lord’s birth and present day. Secular history records that age information for us. No one can put any usable gaps between the Lord and Abraham; secular history also records that age information for us. The only place one could try to place any “usable” gaps in regard to extending the age of the Earth would be between Abraham and Adam. I would think that an outer limit could be established by 6 days of literal creation and Adam's then 930 years of living to mute any objections about the time living in Eden. My point being is that any such gap as to make genealogies useless comes from an attempt to shoehorn millions if not billions of years into the Biblical narration. I mean in one camp we have the millions of years because such time is the minimum needed for Evolution, or some say. On the other hand we have the billions of years camp because they realize not even in millions of years can Evolution take place, so they say. Now I'm not saying that Genealogies is accurate to the year, but why isn't there a minimum to maximum limitation of say 6-7000 years instead of millions or billions of years? The only thing I would really like to emphasize is that making a case for an old earth presents the basis for Darwinian Evolution if nothing more. Evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, and progressive creationists need a 4 billion year old earth. This is the only way they can come to legitimize those theories.

 

By the way, I just can't help laugh when thinking about how disgruntle Ben Carson looked when Bill O'Riley wedged Darwinian Evolution into his gap.... . :D

 

Here's an interesting article I read on the subject of Genealogies which rejected its usefulness in determining the age of the earth. I can't help but think that the only real basis for rejecting it was that it is incompatible with an outside narration. Are you familiar with the Sumerian King List? I haven't researched it, but I was curious as to why it was being used to fact check Genesis?

 

https://www.christforums.org/forum/c...ogies-reliable

 

Don't get me wrong, I do not consider this so important as to shake Christiandom's foundation. Not like someone claiming to have found Jesus' dead body.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

 

I'm not aware of any gaps between the Lord’s birth and present day. Secular history records that age information for us. No one can put any usable gaps between the Lord and Abraham; secular history also records that age information for us. The only place one could try to place any “usable” gaps in regard to extending the age of the Earth would be between Abraham and Adam. I would think that an outer limit could be established by 6 days of literal creation and Adam's then 930 years of living to mute any objections about the time living in Eden. My point being is that any such gap as to make genealogies useless comes from an attempt to shoehorn millions if not billions of years into the Biblical narration. I mean in one camp we have the millions of years because such time is the minimum needed for Evolution, or some say. On the other hand we have the billions of years camp because they realize not even in millions of years can Evolution take place, so they say. Now I'm not saying that Genealogies is accurate to the year, but why isn't there a minimum to maximum limitation of say 6-7000 years instead of millions or billions of years? The only thing I would really like to emphasize is that making a case for an old earth presents the basis for Darwinian Evolution if nothing more. Evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, and progressive creationists need a 4 billion year old earth. This is the only way they can come to legitimize those theories.

 

By the way, I just can't help laugh when thinking about how disgruntle Ben Carson was annoyed when Bill O'Riley wedged Darwinian Evolution into his gap.... . :D

 

Here's an interesting article I read on the subject of Genealogies which rejected its usefulness in determining the age of the earth. I can't help but think that the only real basis for rejecting it was that it is incompatible with an outside narration. Are you familiar with the Sumerian King List? I haven't researched it, but I was curious as to why it was being used to fact check Genesis?

 

https://www.christforums.org/forum/c...ogies-reliable

 

Don't get me wrong, I do not consider this so important as to shake Christiandom's foundation. Not like someone claiming to have found Jesus' dead body.

 

God bless,

William

There are often gaps in the genealogies for various reasons. They often have a structure that suits the purpose of the writer. Yet my point has nothing to do with the genealogies. My point deals with the structure of Gen. 1.

 

As for the evolutionists etc., the idea that it might help them is not really relevant. One cannot help how someone might abuse information.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
There are often gaps in the genealogies for various reasons. They often have a structure that suits the purpose of the writer. Yet my point has nothing to do with the genealogies. My point deals with the structure of Gen. 1.

 

As for the evolutionists etc., the idea that it might help them is not really relevant. One cannot help how someone might abuse information.

 

I want to inspect your gap. Mr. :confused:

 

Is your point only in Genesis 1:1 or between Genesis 1:1-2? I acknowledge what you said in the previous post, but can you clarify as to how you came to that conclusion?

 

For example:

 

When God in the beginning created the heaven and the earth, the earth was empty and waste. (35) He moreover teaches by the word “created,” that what before did not exist was now made; for he has not used the term יצר, (yatsar,) which signifies to frame or forms but ברא, (bara,) which signifies to create. (36) Therefore his meaning is, that the world was made out of nothing. Hence the folly of those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter existed from eternity; and who gather nothing else from the narration of Moses than that the world was furnished with new ornaments, and received a form of which it was before destitute. This indeed was formerly a common fable among heathens, (37) who had received only an obscure report of the creation, and who, according to custom, adulterated the truth of God with strange figments; but for Christian men to labor (as Steuchus does (38)) in maintaining this gross error is absurd and intolerable. Let this, then be maintained in the first place, (39) that the world is not eternal but was created by God. There is no doubt that Moses gives the name of heaven and earth to that confused mass which he, shortly afterwards, (Gen 1:2.) denominates waters. The reason of which is, that this matter was to be the seed of the whole world. Besides, this is the generally recognized division of the world. (40) John Calvin

 

I'm asking what exactly is missing from Genesis 1:1 if nothing more than God made heaven and earth from nothing before any creature was? I realize you quoted an entire chapter, perhaps you can help me see more from your view?

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
William said:
Here's an interesting article I read on the subject of Genealogies which rejected its usefulness in determining the age of the earth. I can't help but think that the only real basis for rejecting it was that it is incompatible with an outside narration. Are you familiar with the Sumerian King List? I haven't researched it, but I was curious as to why it was being used to fact check Genesis?

It is not used to fact check Genesis. These are a few of things that makes them interesting. One thing is that the earliest kings on the list reigned for thousands of years (i.e. 28,800, 36,000, 43,000, 21,000, 18,600).  As the list goes on the time spans shorten.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest William
It is not used to fact check Genesis. There are a few of things that makes them interesting. One thing is that the earliest kings on the list reigned for thousands of years (i.e. 28,800, 36,000, 43,000, 21,000, 18,600). As the list goes on the time spans shorten.

 

Can you provide a link to where you are reading that? And that's tens of thousands of years isn't it? If we are to base from Adam that man's life was increasingly limited thereafter, then wouldn't that put them before Adam?

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
I want to expect your gap. Mr. :confused:

 

Is your point only in Genesis 1:1 or between Genesis 1:1-2? I acknowledge what you said in the previous post, but can you clarify as to how you came to that conclusion?

 

For example:

 

I'm asking what exactly is missing from Genesis 1:1 if nothing more than God made heaven and earth from nothing before any creature was? I realize you quoted an entire chapter, perhaps you can help me see more from your view?

Nothing is missing. Lets take this one step at a time. Does Gen. 1:1-2 refer to the creation of the whole universe?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...
Articles - News