The Earth is 6000 years old?

[Danieltwotwenty]

Christ said believe in me not believe in me and YEC, you are promoting a works based salvation and not grace Starhunter. Read Exodus and the story of the plagues and how the blood of the lamb was painted on the doors to protect those within, notice it did not matter if they were doubters, or sinners or whatever, all were saved who wanted to be because they were covered by the blood of the lamb, you are taking Christ's blood and saying it is not enough for you and that you must believe YEC.

[RickD]

Starhunter wrote:
When I read that God made the world in six days, I believe it, because that is what it says. It does not say otherwise.

Actually Starhunter, the text says "yom". It was translated to "days" in English. But I'm sure you knew that already.

So, if you are going by what scripture plainly says in english, then you worship a rock, a shield, and a horn.
Psalm 18:2
2 The Lord is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer;
my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge,
my shield[a] and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

[Starhunter]

Christ said believe in me not believe in me and YEC, you are promoting a works based salvation and not grace Starhunter. Read Exodus and the story of the plagues and how the blood of the lamb was painted on the doors to protect those within, notice it did not matter if they were doubters, or sinners or whatever, all were saved who wanted to be because they were covered by the blood of the lamb, you are taking Christ's blood and saying it is not enough for you and that you must believe YEC.

I agree with you. How did you arrive at the conclusion that I reckon that Christ's blood is not enough?

If you believe in His power and ability to create or save, then you don't need to stretch creation or stretch salvation.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Christ said believe in me not believe in me and YEC, you are promoting a works based salvation and not grace Starhunter. Read Exodus and the story of the plagues and how the blood of the lamb was painted on the doors to protect those within, notice it did not matter if they were doubters, or sinners or whatever, all were saved who wanted to be because they were covered by the blood of the lamb, you are taking Christ's blood and saying it is not enough for you and that you must believe YEC.

I agree with you. How did you arrive at the conclusion that I reckon that Christ's blood is not enough?

If you believe in His power and ability to create or save, then you don't need to stretch creation or stretch salvation.

And you don't need to shrink it either, why would God be restricted to one Earth day, the texts themselves don't say how long it was, it says one Yom which can have multiple interpretations.

I arrived at my conclusion because you said earlier that if you truly are a believer then you would believe in a YEC interpretation, I am paraphrasing because I am on my phone, I will copy in your comments below when I can.

Starhunter:
Is it necessary to believe in a YEC to be saved? How could you properly appreciate what salvation is if you are relying on the opinions of unbelievers, and not the word of God?

What exactly do you mean when you say this, you do realise that OEC has existed longer than the science that confirms it. What you seem to be saying is that salvation is not genuine if it is not based on a YEC interpretation.

[Starhunter]

No need to, it is easy to scroll back, I like your point about shrinking, and have an answer found in the ten commandments, re the fourth on the seventh day, this implies that the weekly cycle of literal days is a memorial of creation.

Now of course you can say that the week only represents certain time periods, but does the Bible require it? I don't know.

It says to keep the 7th day, for, or because, in six days God created heaven and earth etc,

[Starhunter]

What exactly do you mean when you say this, you do realise that OEC has existed longer than the science that confirms it. What you seem to be saying is that salvation is not genuine if it is not based on a YEC interpretation.

I don't know of an OEC or evolution, or of the science that backs it up lately. I believe the basic story of creation in six days and have never thought to question it.

The Bible is a book of salvation, and begins with creation, which sets the platform for all of God's dealings with humanity.

Jesus used to teach, beginning with the writings of Moses. Is the beginning important for salvation, is not all scripture profitable for salvation?

I don't make a distinction between the works of creation and the works of recreation - which is what salvation is.

As someone said earlier, one believes in the resurrection, but when it comes to creation, it is better to give God more time to do it. Creation is practically instantaneous, as is salvation. "He spoke and it was..."

By the same token He speaks to us the word of salvation, which is instant. A person is not lost because they believe in evolution of OEC, but to teach others that this is the way when you know better, and to ignore scripture on the basis of false science, is a denial of Christ and His ability to speak the word of creation and or salvation, getting instant results.

[Mazzy]

Christ said believe in me not believe in me and YEC, you are promoting a works based salvation and not grace Starhunter. Read Exodus and the story of the plagues and how the blood of the lamb was painted on the doors to protect those within, notice it did not matter if they were doubters, or sinners or whatever, all were saved who wanted to be because they were covered by the blood of the lamb, you are taking Christ's blood and saying it is not enough for you and that you must believe YEC.

You are correct. To suggest one is not understanding the bible or not a good bible student because they are not a YEC is seriously sad. There is no biblical basis for OEC or YEC. One can only turn to sound reasoning eg all that was one on the 6th day could not be done in a literal 24 hours or what one believes from the sciences.

[Stu]

No need to, it is easy to scroll back, I like your point about shrinking, and have an answer found in the ten commandments, re the fourth on the seventh day, this implies that the weekly cycle of literal days is a memorial of creation.

This is a good point.

[RickD]

It's a template for 6 work periods followed by 1 rest period. It's not a literal 168 hour week. If it was meant to be specifically and only seven 24 hour days, there wouldn't have been sabbath years.

Leviticus 25:1-12
25 The Lord then spoke to Moses [a]at Mount Sinai, saying, 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When you come into the land which I shall give you, then the land shall have a sabbath to the Lord. 3 Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather in its crop, 4 but during the seventh year the land shall have a sabbath rest, a sabbath to the Lord; you shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard. 5 Your harvest’s aftergrowth you shall not reap, and your grapes of untrimmed vines you shall not gather; the land shall have a sabbatical year. 6 All of you shall have the sabbath products of the land for food; yourself, and your male and female slaves, and your hired man and your foreign resident, those who live as aliens with you. 7 Even your cattle and the animals that are in your land shall have all its crops to eat.

8 ‘You are also to count off seven sabbaths of years for yourself, seven times seven years, so that you have the time of the seven sabbaths of years, namely, forty-nine years. 9 You shall then sound a ram’s horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all through your land. 10 You shall thus consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim [c]a release through the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you, [d]and each of you shall return to his own property, [e]and each of you shall return to his family. 11 You shall have the fiftieth year as a jubilee; you shall not sow, nor reap its aftergrowth, nor gather in from its untrimmed vines. 12 For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy to you. You shall eat its crops out of the field.

[Mallz]

is not all scripture profitable for salvation?

Agreed.. most definitely!

Is the beginning important for salvation

No... (It's good for teaching )
I've used the KJV because I saw you prefer it (although personally I have issues with )

Of course you know John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. Followed later by 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Believe that Christ is God incarnate that died to give life to all humanity. That is what is required for salvation.

I don't make a distinction between the works of creation and the works of recreation - which is what salvation is.

I don't understand. Elaborate?

but to teach others that this is the way when you know better, and to ignore scripture on the basis of false science, is a denial of Christ and His ability to speak the word of creation and or salvation, getting instant results.

The thing is.. And since you never thought to question "the basic story of creation in six days", you need to give people of other creation views a bit more slack. What was italicized: It's incorrect to label other creation views in such manner as it implies assured knowledge. They don't 'know better'. They are confused but have good reason through legit exegesis to believe as such. Personally I'm convinced of YEC, but have doubts based on legit reason to question if OEC is the actual truth. I started as a YEC, went to OEC and am now back at YEC The most hilarious thing, is I was YEC when I was innocent, OEC when rebellious, and YEC again when I started my relationship with God through reason and borrowed wisdom.

Anyways, I thought I had more to say but I forgot what. Now I forgot if I ever did...

[Jannah]

Hi!

Just to clarify, "starhunter" I am not refuting the fact that God created this earth as we know it in 6 days and neither am I refuting that those days could have been 6,000 years as scripture states a thousand years are as a day and vise versa. What I am saying however is that scripture points to an earth already in place in which God said let there be light and so on and so on. Genesis 1:1 states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". I believe this statement to be apart from verse two which sais "And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep". ( In verse one the Hebrew word used there is "Bara" which actually translates as "fat" or "made to be fat" which would make sense in accordance with verse two that the earth was void. But I understand that this is all hypothetical since one must take into account that the original Hebrew alphabet was a series of pictures and that in Hebrew one word had many meanings in the sense that it was a thought or overall image that was conveyed rather than technicalities more liken to the scientific English language)

But the point is why do you feel young earth perspective is necessary for salvation? If you agree that the serpent in the garden is Satan which is basic christian premise then Satan would have to already be on earth when it was created which to me proves the earth is older, among other things. God has said throughout the bible that he creates and he destroys, he created the earth then it was destroyed through Noah's flood as well he sais in latter times he will create a new heaven and a new earth. So why is it so hard to believe that he would have done that in the past, Satan fell to earth like lightning with a third of the angels, this is when the earth was without form and void and darkness hovered over the face of the deep, then God said "let there be light" and ushered in a new age in where he created men on the earth.

[Mazzy]

Hi!

But the point is why do you feel young earth perspective is necessary for salvation? If you agree that the serpent in the garden is Satan which is basic christian premise then Satan would have to already be on earth when it was created which to me proves the earth is older, among other things. God has said throughout the bible that he creates and he destroys, he created the earth then it was destroyed through Noah's flood as well he sais in latter times he will create a new heaven and a new earth. So why is it so hard to believe that he would have done that in the past, Satan fell to earth like lightning with a third of the angels, this is when the earth was without form and void and darkness hovered over the face of the deep, then God said "let there be light" and ushered in a new age in where he created men on the earth.

I agree Jannah. Having these discussions are interesting but salvation does not rely on ones creation perspective.

Not that I have thought about it deeply, but I believed, mostly based on Revelation, that the war broke out in heaven after the male child was delivered, being Jesus. Jesus then won the day over death and cast Satan down. Since Adam sinned Satan has ruled over earth and that is why Satan offered Jesus the earth in the temptations. However satan being cast to earth was another event further on than satan ruling the earth.

I am interested in this view of satan being cast to earth when the earth was void and have heard it a few times on here. Can you or anyone else post a link to some info explaining the reasoning behind this view?

I know a lady that is a wicken witch. She says Adam was here before in another era and was married to Lilleth, so there are many takes on how it was in the beginning, none of which have to do with being saved. I also know Christians that don't believe satan is an entity per se but the spirit of sin that overtakes us when we choose to do wrong. These believe Genesis is a metaphor. God is responsible for the creation. IOW without God, ....the physics would not have tweaked and so.....nothing.

[RickD]

Mazzy wrote:
I am interested in this view of satan being cast to earth when the earth was void and have heard it a few times on here. Can you or anyone else post a link to some info explaining the reasoning behind this view?

Mazzy,

That's the gap theory, aka the ruination theory. I don't know any specific sites that I'd recommend to learn about it though. I don't know anyone that actually believes in it anymore.

Just google "gap creation theory". If you really want to learn about it, I'd suggest finding a site that actually believes in it.

Here's the basics from Wikipedia.

[Jac3510]

Mazzy wrote:
I am interested in this view of satan being cast to earth when the earth was void and have heard it a few times on here. Can you or anyone else post a link to some info explaining the reasoning behind this view?

Mazzy,

That's the gap theory, aka the ruination theory. I don't know any specific sites that I'd recommend to learn about it though. I don't know anyone that actually believes in it anymore.

Just google "gap creation theory". If you really want to learn about it, I'd suggest finding a site that actually believes in it.

Here's the basics from Wikipedia.

Yup

I've also written about it elsewhere, and for perspective other that didn't come from my own pen/keyboard: here and here.

[Mazzy]

Mazzy wrote:
I am interested in this view of satan being cast to earth when the earth was void and have heard it a few times on here. Can you or anyone else post a link to some info explaining the reasoning behind this view?

Mazzy,

That's the gap theory, aka the ruination theory. I don't know any specific sites that I'd recommend to learn about it though. I don't know anyone that actually believes in it anymore.

Just google "gap creation theory". If you really want to learn about it, I'd suggest finding a site that actually believes in it.

Here's the basics from Wikipedia.

Yup

I've also written about it elsewhere, and for perspective other that didn't come from my own pen/keyboard: here and here.

Thanks Jac. I obviously missed your reply.

I have looked at one link for the basics and will have to ponder further. What I can say for now is it a very interesting concept. The other thing I'll add is this. Although I believe in such a thing as science, maths and physics, there is much offered as empirical evidence that is actually only demonstrating scientists can support any prevailing bias of the day.

I believe God created life instantly and do not think a complex factory of reproduction can come about by chemical reactions eg proteins first theory. However because my basic belief is 'old earther' I do not have a problem with a process being used for the creation of the earth or universe that was designed by God. I like to look at all creation concepts and think there is some merit in some supports offered for each of them, yet they cannot all be right.

I shall look at Gap theory a little deeper. Thanks for the links.