Posted on 03/25/2009 9:09:02 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Old-Earth Creationism
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
Many evangelical leaders today, unfortunately, have capitulated to the evolutionary timescale of modern unbelieving geologists and astronomers. They feel that they must somehow reinterpret the Genesis record of creation to allow for billions of prehistoric years, which the evolutionists must have in order to make cosmic evolution and biological evolution seem feasible. This compromise is necessary, they say, in order to win scientists and other intellectuals to the Lord...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
What was your point?
St. Augustine also comments on the word “day” in the creation week, admitting the interpretation is difficult:
“But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world’s creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!” (City of God, Book 11: Chapt. 6).
Great answer. but like I posted earlier, if you have problems with the first 4 words of the Bible, well, youre in trouble! Repeating, It says: In the beginning GOD!! What more can anyone question? I see it as doubting what God said!! If He said it, Its the truth, and I can rest in that. with no questions or wonderings!!
Origen of Alexandria, in a passage that was later chosen by Gregory of Nazianzus for inclusion in the Philocalia, an anthology of some of his most important texts, made the following very modern-sounding remarks:
“For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.” (De Principiis IV, 3, 1 [6])
I believe what I believe, and that makes me what I am!! Ive never even heard of the writers you posted or heard their names, but I believe what the Bible says, not what a human says!
Perhaps not about Creation but certainly about the need for Christ's redemptive sacrifice on the cross.
Roman's 5 says that through one man, Adam, sin and therefore death came into the world.
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
Emphasis mine. The point is, without the connection between Adam's sin and the initiation of death, there is no consequence for sin if death was already happening. If there is no consequence for sin, there is no need for payment for sin and therefore no need for a savior.
I do not know much about day-age or old-earth theories, nor even about evolution. I just know that if these theories have death introduced prior to Adam, they are in danger of precluding Christ and His message of redemption.
We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary — rather than mutually exclusive — realities.
– Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning
I don't read ancient Hebrew so please paraphrase as well as tell me the original intent.
Scripture trumps anything Augustine or anyone else has opined about Scripture.
You just seem so heck-bent to want to find anything that allows you to reject the biblical account of creation.
And as far as evolution is concerned, why limit God into having to use it? Evolution limits God, he can’t get us to where he wants us without it?
I am talking about anyone who’s spent their careers writing papers about the known/proven evolutionary hoaxes, defended the hoaxes, furthered theories built on hoaxes, only to be later find out all that work was worthless because they were just building upon a lie.
no Christian should brag about not knowing of Gregory or Origen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Nazianzen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen_of_Alexandria
maybe that is part of the problem.
Agustine trumps you, 007!
God’s Word trumps Augustine, and as I stand with God’s Word, I am on the right side.
Where do get brag about? The Bible says all I need to read, why should I read something else to explain what I have already read about in the Bible, because thats all the truth I need?
2Pe 3:5 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:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
Of course this is said to be the flood of Noah's time...
2Pe 3:7 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.
This verse suggests that Heaven, along with the earth perished...We read no where in Noah's account that the Heavens had to be replaced, or restored, but apparently they both were at some point in time...
And of course the KJV is the only bible on the market to use the word replenish in this context:
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And even tho the greek word for replenish is the same greed word used for replenish in this one:
Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
, the Catholic bibles of course claim the same greek word does not mean the same thing in both verses...And we KNOW what replenish means...It means, FILL AGAIN...
Just some food for thought...
Bout time you guys caught up...Jesus told us that 2000 years ago...
Luk 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
“Evolution is falsifiable.” [excerpt]How can something that is not testable be falsifiable?
I've read considerably about both...Then I dumped the information into the round file...
Why not? A day is measured as one rotation of the earth in relation to a fixed point of light,what's wrong with assuming that He who said "let there be light" was the source of that light?
"...and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life?"
"Obtained life"? They already had life and were told they would lose it if they ate of the tree.
"And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree?"
Maybe it had less to do with masticating than it did with disobeying God.
"And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree..."
So what? God can't walk in the garden? Adam can't make a feeble attempt at hiding himself from God because he knew he had disobeyed Him?
"I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries..."
True enough however it doesn't automatically mean the events didn't also litterally happen.
"the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally"
Nothing said here convinces me in the slightest I should not take Genesis as I read it.
We have no idea how much worldy 'stuff' seeps into us from the day we are born.But the more we begin to grasp what is actually happening the easier it is to believe the Word of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.