Finally Picked a creation stance.

abelcainsbrother · Post by **abelcainsbrother** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:27 am

I have a Dake's reference bible written in the 1930's and it mentions day age creationism,so even day age goes back quite a long time.I don't lknow exactly how long but if Dake is giving reasons he disagrees with it,then it has to be a lot older than some people think and I think it needs to be pointed out that it was known by science the earth is very old at least millions of years old before evolution became popular. So I do believe both Day-Age and the Gap theory go back before evolution.I can back up the Gap theory.Intelligent Design is also old and goes all the way back to the 1800's too.

neo-x · Post by **neo-x** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:31 am

RickD wrote:If the Bible states it as happening in 6 literal days then why do you not believe it?

Neo,
I didn't mean to imply that how you got to the point of what you believe now, was a simple decision. What I mean is that on one hand you have nature, which you believe shows the ToE to be true. And on the other hand you have scripture, which you believe shows YEC to be what was meant by the author. And after weighing those out, you just (simply) believe in the evidence of evolution, over inerrancy of scripture.

What I'm asking, is for you not to sugar coat that. For most Christians I know, in fact all, inerrancy of scripture is very important.

I clearly said, the scriptures in Genesis are in error, how is that sugar coating?

Ok. I just want it to be clear, that's all. Like I said biblical inerrancy is a big issue to most believers.

I agree with you Rick. If anything I feel I have been most open about this.

RickD · Post by **RickD** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:34 am

RickD wrote:
And if the author's intent wasn't to show how long it took for God to create, then believing the text allows for an OEC interpretation does not run counter to the author's intent.

neo wrote:
If that had been the case there would be no dispute. But that isn't so, 500 years ago you and me both would have had no trouble accepting the YEC interpretation, as far as scripture is concerned. You know why? because there was no such thing as OEC merited in the scripture. This position was made so that the science findings and the biblical claims could be aligned, as close as possible.

No dispute? I disagree. Some, including you, believe the author's intent was to show the universe was created in 6 twenty-four hour days. And some believe that wasn't the author's intent.

500 years ago? Heck, not much more than 5 years ago, I believed in YEC.

Neo,
If the author's intent was to show that God created the heavens and the earth, and that God wanted to convey a 6 to 1 template of work to rest, then the author's intent wasn't to convey YEC nor OEC.

OEC was always allowed by the text because of the multiple meanings of yom. So, by saying OEC is allowed or compatible with the text, isn't the same as saying OEC was the author's intent. Like I said, what if the age of the earth wasn't even part of the intent of the author?

Storyteller · Post by **Storyteller** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:44 am

Kinda my thoughts Rick.

For me Genesis just explains how it came into being rather than how long it took.

I`m not sure at that time they had any way of knowing how old the earth was/is. It`s only through scientific advancement that we are able to tell these things. I think it was more important to explain how it happened rather than the time scale.

abelcainsbrother · Post by **abelcainsbrother** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:50 am

I kinda get the feeling we are confusing ST,so ST I think you just need to take some time and examine every creation interpretation out there and then make your decision.This is what I did and I used to be a YEC too,so I already had a good understanding of YEC.If you need links to Gap theory web-sights for research,let me know.I think for Day-Age you have enough info here already.

Storyteller · Post by **Storyteller** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:53 am

And I`m easily confused ACB

Actually all of this has helped, a lot. It`s an interesting topic and I shall carry on looking into it all.

What changed your mind about YEC?

By all means pass me some Gap Theory links but be warned out of all the creation ideas GT is the weakest for me but maybe that`s just because I haven`t read a convincing argument yet.

RickD · Post by **RickD** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:01 am

Storyteller wrote:

What changed your mind about YEC?

Are you asking me?

abelcainsbrother · Post by **abelcainsbrother** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:02 am

Storyteller wrote:And I`m easily confused ACB

Actually all of this has helped, a lot. It`s an interesting topic and I shall carry on looking into it all.

What changed your mind about YEC?

By all means pass me some Gap Theory links but be warned out of all the creation ideas GT is the weakest for me but maybe that`s just because I haven`t read a convincing argument yet.

What changed my mind about YEC? It took awhile for me,only because I was looking for info in the wrong places.I first heard about Lucifer's flood and I thought it was bad teaching at first but I decided to look into it,looking for Lucifer's flood and info about it and I couldn't find much info about it,so I kinda put it on the back burner for awhile,but then I found a Gap theory web-sight one day and was persuaded by it and I realized finally where the idea for Lucifer's flood came from,then I just started reading more and more,I found more Gap theory web-sights ,then I realized everything YEC's had said about it was wrong.I was convinced based on what the bible says first,then I started looking into science and in my debates with atheists they would post links to science web sights so I would save them and then go back and read them.

Storyteller · Post by **Storyteller** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:10 am

Go on then, give me some links to look at

RickD · Post by **RickD** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:13 am

Storyteller wrote:Go on then, give me some links to look at

First Catholicism, now Gap Theory!

Annette,

We really need to pay more attention to what you're getting yourself into!

abelcainsbrother · Post by **abelcainsbrother** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:15 am

Can I Rick? I have avoided it out of respect.

Storyteller · Post by **Storyteller** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:18 am

Didn`t say I`d believe it did I?

Just said I`ll look, open mind and all that.

If I`m going to look into the possibilities then I need to be fair and at least read up on the Gap Theory before I discount it (which I probably will!)

Storyteller · Post by **Storyteller** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:19 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:Can I Rick? I have avoided it out of respect.

If you can`t or don`t want to post them on here, pm me with them. I will take a look but to be fair, it`ll have to be a pretty powerful argument to persuade me as it`s the weakest theory for me.

abelcainsbrother · Post by **abelcainsbrother** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:20 am

Storyteller wrote:Go on then, give me some links to look at

Here is one.This is probably my favorite and even brings geological science into things.
http://www.kjvbible.org/

And I like this one too and from this one you can find more links to other Gap theory web sights.
http://www.evogenesis.com/blog.html

RickD · Post by **RickD** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:20 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:Can I Rick? I have avoided it out of respect.

Can you what? Give her links to Gap Theory?

Absolutely.

Evidence for God from Science

Finally Picked a creation stance.

Re: Finally Picked a creation stance.

Re: Finally Picked a creation stance.

Re: Finally Picked a creation stance.

Re: Finally Picked a creation stance.

Re: Finally Picked a creation stance.

Re: Finally Picked a creation stance.

Re: Finally Picked a creation stance.

Re: Finally Picked a creation stance.

Re: Finally Picked a creation stance.

Re: Finally Picked a creation stance.

Re: Finally Picked a creation stance.

Re: Finally Picked a creation stance.

Re: Finally Picked a creation stance.

Re: Finally Picked a creation stance.

Re: Finally Picked a creation stance.